Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34448878›Full record

ArticleHNO2022

[Follow-up II of newborn hearing screening : Evaluation of a follow-up II facility after implementation of newborn hearing screening in Germany].

Nicola Fink, Almut Goeze, Eugen Zaretsky, Anna Fink, Katrin Reimann, Christiane Hey

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Hearing Screening Marginalized.Deutsches Arzteblatt international · 2023
    Article
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

6 authors.

Nicola FinkKlinik und Poliklinik für Radiologie, Klinikum der Universität München, LMU München, Marchioninistraße 15, 81377, München, Deutschland. nicola.fink@med.uni-muenchen.de.
Almut GoezeAbteilung für Phoniatrie und Pädaudiologie, Universitätsklinikum Gießen und Marburg GmbH, Standort Marburg, Philipps-Universität Marburg, Marburg, Deutschland.
Eugen ZaretskyAbteilung für Phoniatrie und Pädaudiologie, Universitätsklinikum Gießen und Marburg GmbH, Standort Marburg, Philipps-Universität Marburg, Marburg, Deutschland.
Anna FinkAbteilung für Phoniatrie und Pädaudiologie, Universitätsklinikum Gießen und Marburg GmbH, Standort Marburg, Philipps-Universität Marburg, Marburg, Deutschland.
Katrin ReimannKlinik für Hals‑, Nasen- und Ohrenheilkunde, Universitätsklinikum Gießen und Marburg GmbH, Standort Marburg, Philipps-Universität Marburg, Marburg, Deutschland.
Christiane HeyAbteilung für Phoniatrie und Pädaudiologie, Universitätsklinikum Gießen und Marburg GmbH, Standort Marburg, Philipps-Universität Marburg, Marburg, Deutschland.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

Hearing TestsNeonatal ScreeningFollow-Up StudiesGermanyHearingHumansInfantInfant, NewbornRetrospective StudiesChildhood hearing impairmentG-BA targetsOrganizationPediatric audiological confirmation diagnosisQuality standards

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.