ArticleZhongguo dang dai er ke za zhi = Chinese journal of contemporary pediatrics2020
[Duration of automated auditory brainstem response test for the initial hearing screening and influencing factors for the duration in neonates].
Article in Zhongguo dang dai er ke za zhi = Chinese journal of contemporary pediatrics, 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, 0 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
5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo study the duration of automated auditory brainstem response (AABR) test for initial hearing screening and the factors influencing the duration in neonates.
methodsA total of 472 neonates who were admitted to the neonatal intensive care unit (NICU) were enrolled as the study group and 182 healthy neonates were enrolled as the healthy control group. The influence of the duration of AABR test on the initial screening results was observed in the two groups. The influencing factors for the AABR test duration were analyzed.
resultsIn the AABR screening of 180, 360, and 540 seconds, the study group had a failure rate of 41.5%, 28.4%, and 24.4% respectively, while the healthy control group had a failure rate of 31.3%, 19.8%, and 15.4% respectively, showing a decreasing trend with the extension of test time in both groups (P<0.05). In the two groups, the screening results of 180-second testing were moderately consistent with those of 360- or 540-second testing (Kappa<0.75, P<0.05), and the screening results of 360-second testing were highly consistent with those of 540-second testing (Kappa>0.75, P<0.05). In the study group, the median duration of AABR test was 108 seconds (95%CI: 97-120 seconds), which was significantly longer than the duration of 75 seconds (95%CI: 65-85 seconds) in the healthy control group (P<0.05). The Cox regression analysis showed that maternal age ≥35 years, anemia, and electrolyte disturbance (RR<1, P<0.05) were independent risk factors for prolonged AABR test duration, while the prolonged continuous positive airway pressure-assisted ventilation was a protective factor (RR>1, P<0.05).
conclusionsThe AABR test time of 360-540 seconds for initial hearing screening helps to reduce false positive results due to environmental and risk factors in neonates. It may be useful to reduce the false positive results of AABR screening before discharge by taking corresponding intervention measures for NICU neonates with high risk factors.
Indexed as
Identifiers
33059805PMC7568999W3093466245What 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.