ArticleHNO2022
[Follow-up II of newborn hearing screening : Evaluation of a follow-up II facility after implementation of newborn hearing screening in Germany].
Article in HNO, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Universal Newborn Hearing Screening Program: 10-Year Outcome and Follow-Up from a Screening Center in Germany.International journal of neonatal screening · 2023Article
- Hearing Screening Marginalized.Deutsches Arzteblatt international · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundWith the implementation of newborn hearing screening, evaluation in terms of quality and goal achievement was required. The present study evaluates a follow-up II facility from 2009 to 2016.
methodsData of 2705 newborns were retrospectively evaluated. The annual number of patients was analyzed, as well as the median age at first presentation, at diagnosis, and at treatment, each according to the reason for presentation and the diagnosis.
resultsFrom 2009 to 2016, the number of presented newborns increased by 91.4%. Newborns with abnormal initial screening or risk factors were presented significantly later than those for initial screening (median 5.3 and 8.0 vs. 4.6 weeks, respectively; p < 0.001). Permanently or transiently hearing-impaired patients were presented and diagnosed significantly later than those with normal hearing (age at initial presentation 6.1 and 7.6 vs. 5.4 weeks, p < 0.01 and p < 0.001, respectively; age at diagnosis 11.4 and 23.1 vs. 5.9 weeks, respectively; p < 0.001). Permanent hearing loss was treated at the age of 14.1 weeks. From 2009 to 2014, the age at first presentation and at diagnosis increased and subsequently mostly decreased until 2016.
conclusionThe age at first presentation and at diagnosis depends on the reason for presentation and on the diagnosis. Despite increasing patient numbers, the Joint Federal Committee (Gemeinsame Bundesausschuss, G‑BA) targets were met due to effective and efficient organizational structuring of the follow-up II facility. However, early admission to a follow-up II facility is a prerequisite for the success of newborn hearing screening.
Indexed as
Identifiers
34448878What 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.