ArticleThe Journal of international medical research2021
Newborn hearing loss in the south of China: a cross-sectional study.
Article in The Journal of international medical research, 2021. 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, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- Universal newborn hearing screening outcomes based on national health policy in Chiangrai Prachanukroh Hospital, Thailand.BMC health services research · 2026Article
- Epidemiology and audiologic characteristics of neonatal hearing loss: A cross-sectional study.PloS one · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveNewborn hearing screening can identify congenital deafness and hearing loss. The current status of newborn hearing screening in the south of China is unclear. We aimed to assess the hearing loss of newborns in Dongguan, China.
methodsA total of 62,545 newborns were enrolled in this retrospective, cross-sectional study between September 2015 and August 2020. The screening procedure was carried out using a two-step hearing screening. The trends were examined by the Cochran-Armitage trend test.
resultsFrom 2015 to 2020, the total initial newborn hearing screening rate was 98.16%, and it significantly increased over time (Z = 2.488). The initial screening pass rate of newborns was 90.08%, and no significant difference was observed in the initial screening pass rate between different years (Z = 0.845). After two-step hearing screening, the overall hearing screening pass rate of newborns was 94.65%. The overall hearing screening pass rate in normal newborns was higher than that in high-risk newborns (95.70% vs. 93.59%).
conclusionThe initial newborn hearing screening rate increased yearly in the study period, but there was still an approximately 10% referral rate. The initial screening pass rate in China needs to be further improved.
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.