ArticleThe journal of international advanced otology2020
Hearing Aid Uptake in Children with Unilateral Microtia and Canal Atresia: A Comparison between a Tertiary Center and Peripheral Centers.
Article in The journal of international advanced otology, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesTo review the trialing and uptake of hearing aids in children with unilateral microtia or canal atresia, known collectively as congenital unilateral conductive hearing loss (CUCHL), observed in a tertiary hospital and local peripheral services. MATERIALS AND
methodsA retrospective review of medical records for patients with CUCHL was conducted using data from a shared audiology database at a tertiary children's hospital.
resultsWe identified 45 patients with CUCHL and excluded seven of them due to missing data. Of the 38 patients, 16 (16/38, 42%) did not have any subjective hearing complaints. Furthermore, 32% (12/38) of patients attended audiology at a tertiary centre and 83% (10/12) from this group trialled a hearing aid. In comparison, 46% (12/46) whose audiology care was delivered peripherally trialled aiding. Of the patients from the tertiary center, 58% (7/12) are still using a hearing aid compared to 27% (7/26) of patients from peripheral centers.
conclusionOur analysis shows that patients with CUCHL are more likely to try hearing aids and continue using them if their audiology care is in a tertiary center. Allowing for a small sample size, this may indicate a health inequality. Agreeing on minimum standards for the management of patients with CUCHL or managing them in a designated center could increase consistency.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.