Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32490329›Full record

ReviewOTO open

How the World's Children Hear: A Narrative Review of School Hearing Screening Programs Globally.

Michael Yong, Neelima Panth, Catherine M McMahon, Peter R Thorne, Susan D Emmett

Open access · goldAbstract readReview
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in OTO open. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 30 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
30citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
3.9field-weighted citation impact, top 6% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

30 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 63 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Feasibility of Stepwise Technology-Based Audiometry With Rapid Results (STARR) Protocol in Minnesota Elementary Schools.Otolaryngology--head and neck surgery : official journal of American Academy of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery · 2025
    Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Access to Ear and Hearing Care Globally: A Survey of Stakeholder Perceptions from the Lancet Commission on Global Hearing Loss.Otology & neurotology : official publication of the American Otological Society, American Neurotology Society [and] European Academy of Otology and Neurotology · 2025
    Article
  16. Article
  17. School-based hearing screening of first-grade students in Saudi Arabia: A pilot study.The South African journal of communication disorders = Die Suid-Afrikaanse tydskrif vir Kommunikasieafwykings · 2024
    Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors at 5 institutions in 4 countries.

Michael YongDivision of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, Faculty of Medicine, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada.
Neelima PanthSchool of Medicine, Duke University, Durham, North Carolina, USA.
Catherine M McMahonHEAR Centre, Macquarie University, Sydney, Australia.
Peter R ThorneSection of Audiology, University of Auckland, Auckland, New Zealand.
Susan D EmmettDepartment of Head and Neck Surgery and Communication Sciences, School of Medicine, Duke University, Durham, North Carolina, USA.
Duke Institute for Health Innovation · USDuke University · USMacquarie University · AUUniversity of Auckland · NZUniversity of British Columbia · CA

Funding

Yale Clinical and Translational Science Award (U Component)UL1TR001863 · NCATS · YALE UNIVERSITY · PI John H. Krystal, LUCILA OHNO-MACHADO · 2016 to 2026
$102.9M
NCATS NIH HHS UL1 TR001863
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveSchool hearing screening may mitigate the effects of childhood hearing loss through early identification and intervention. This study provides an overview of existing school hearing screening programs around the world, identifies gaps in the literature, and develops priorities for future research. DATA SOURCES: A structured search of the PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library databases. REVIEW

methodsA total of 65 articles were included according to predefined inclusion criteria. Parameters of interest included age groups screened, audiometric protocols, referral criteria, use of adjunct screening tests, rescreening procedures, hearing loss prevalence, screening test sensitivity and specificity, and loss to follow-up.

conclusionsSchool hearing screening is mandated in few regions worldwide, and there is little accountability regarding whether testing is performed. Screening protocols differ in terms of screening tests included and thresholds used. The most common protocols included a mix of pure tone screening (0.5, 1, 2, and 4 kHz), otoscopy, and tympanometry. Estimates of region-specific disease prevalence were methodologically inaccurate, and rescreening was poorly addressed. Loss to follow-up was also a ubiquitous concern. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: There is an urgent need for standardized school hearing screening protocol guidelines globally, which will facilitate more accurate studies of hearing loss prevalence and determination of screening test sensitivity and specificity. In turn, these steps will increase the robustness with which we can study the effects of screening and treatment interventions, and they will support the development of guidelines on the screening, diagnostic, and rehabilitation services needed to reduce the impact of childhood hearing loss.

Indexed as

audiometrychildrenhearing lossotoacoustic emissionsschoolschool hearing screeningtympanometry

Identifiers

PMID32490329
PMCPMC7238315
OpenAlexW3028465797

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.