Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35351033›Full record

SynthesisBMC pediatrics2022

A systematic review of newborn and childhood hearing screening around the world: comparison and quality assessment of guidelines.

Cheng Wen, Xuelei Zhao, Yue Li, Yiding Yu, Xiaohua Cheng, Xiaohong Li, Kui Deng, Xuelian Yuan, Lihui Huang

Open access · goldAbstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in BMC pediatrics, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 19 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
19citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
2.1field-weighted citation impact, top 14% 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

19 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 23 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. PetaleEuropean archives of oto-rhino-laryngology : official journal of the European Federation of Oto-Rhino-Laryngological Societies (EUFOS) : affiliated with the German Society for Oto-Rhino-Laryngology - Head and Neck Surgery · 2026
    Article
  4. Review
  5. Status and gaps in newborn hearing screening in South Africa: A cross-sectoral review.The South African journal of communication disorders = Die Suid-Afrikaanse tydskrif vir Kommunikasieafwykings · 2026
    Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. [Feasibility of MAGIC pure tone screening in children aged 3 to 6 years].Lin chuang er bi yan hou tou jing wai ke za zhi = Journal of clinical otorhinolaryngology head and neck surgery · 2025
    Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. 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

9 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Cheng WenKey Laboratory of Otolaryngology, Head and Neck Surgery, Ministry of Education, Beijing Institute of Otolaryngology, Beijing Tongren Hospital, Capital Medical University, No. 17 Hougou Lane, Chongnei Street, Beijing, 100005, China.
Xuelei ZhaoKey Laboratory of Otolaryngology, Head and Neck Surgery, Ministry of Education, Beijing Institute of Otolaryngology, Beijing Tongren Hospital, Capital Medical University, No. 17 Hougou Lane, Chongnei Street, Beijing, 100005, China.
Yue LiKey Laboratory of Otolaryngology, Head and Neck Surgery, Ministry of Education, Beijing Institute of Otolaryngology, Beijing Tongren Hospital, Capital Medical University, No. 17 Hougou Lane, Chongnei Street, Beijing, 100005, China.
Yiding YuKey Laboratory of Otolaryngology, Head and Neck Surgery, Ministry of Education, Beijing Institute of Otolaryngology, Beijing Tongren Hospital, Capital Medical University, No. 17 Hougou Lane, Chongnei Street, Beijing, 100005, China.
Xiaohua ChengKey Laboratory of Otolaryngology, Head and Neck Surgery, Ministry of Education, Beijing Institute of Otolaryngology, Beijing Tongren Hospital, Capital Medical University, No. 17 Hougou Lane, Chongnei Street, Beijing, 100005, China.
Xiaohong LiNational Center for Birth Defect Monitoring of China, West China Second University Hospital, Sichuan University, Chengdu, 610041, Sichuan, China.
Kui DengNational Center for Birth Defect Monitoring of China, West China Second University Hospital, Sichuan University, Chengdu, 610041, Sichuan, China.
Xuelian YuanNational Center for Birth Defect Monitoring of China, West China Second University Hospital, Sichuan University, Chengdu, 610041, Sichuan, China.
Lihui HuangKey Laboratory of Otolaryngology, Head and Neck Surgery, Ministry of Education, Beijing Institute of Otolaryngology, Beijing Tongren Hospital, Capital Medical University, No. 17 Hougou Lane, Chongnei Street, Beijing, 100005, China. huanglihui@ccmu.edu.cn.
Capital Medical University · CNSichuan University · CN

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThis study aimed to assess the quality of global guidelines or consensus statements for newborn and childhood hearing screening, as well as to compare various guidelines between other countries and China.

methodsA PROSPERO registered systematic review (number CRD42021242198) was conducted. Multiple electronic databases and government websites including PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science, CENTRAL, Cochrane Library, and BMJ Best Practice were searched from inception until May 2021. The latest national and international guidelines, consensus statements, technical specifications, and recommendations regarding newborn or childhood hearing screening that were published in Chinese or English medical journals or elsewhere with the full version available online. The following information was extracted independently by two reviewers for comparative analysis: titles, authors, publication year, country, the source organization, and main key recommendations using systems for assigning the level of evidence and strength of recommendations. The quality of the guidelines was assessed by three independent reviewers using the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation, 2nd edition. Intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs) were calculated to assess among-reviewer agreement.

resultsWe assessed 15 newborn and 6 childhood hearing screening guidelines, respectively. Most newborn guidelines recommend the 1-3-6 guidelines and pre-discharge screening; however, the specific screening times differ. 93.33% of newborn hearing guidelines recommend "primary screening-re-screening-diagnosis-intervention" for well-babies while 73.33% of the guidelines recommend "initial screening-diagnosis-intervention" for newborns in neonatal intensive care unit (NICU); 33.33% of the newborn hearing guidelines recommended initial screening coverage of > 95% while 46.66% did not mention it. Further, 26.66% of the newborn hearing guidelines recommended a referral rate to diagnosis within 4% while 60% did not mention it. Regarding childhood hearing screening guidelines, the screening populations differed across guidelines (age range: 0-9 years); most guidelines recommend pediatric hearing screening for all preschoolers. Only 50% of the guidelines specify screening and re-screening techniques, including pure-tone hearing screening, OAE, tympanometry, and others. The "Clarity of Presentation" domain achieved the highest mean score, and the lowest was "Editorial Independence" both in newborn and childhood guidelines. Overall score of newborn hearing screening guidelines ranged from 3 (2018 Europe) to 7 (2019 America), with an average score of 5.33. Average score of childhood hearing screening guidelines was 4.78, with the score ranging from 4 (2017 England, 2012 Europe, 2016 WHO) to 6.67 (2011 America). ICC analysis revealed excellent agreement across 21 guidelines (> 0.75).

conclusionsThese findings indicated newborn hearing screening guidelines had superior quality over childhood ones. Comparative analysis suggested that recommendations of the Chinese newborn and pediatric hearing screening protocols are consistent with the mainstream international opinion. Moreover, this analysis demonstrated that "Editorial Independence" and "Stakeholder Involvement" have the greatest opportunities for improvement. These results may help to advance the quality of hearing screening guidelines in clinical practice and guide evidence-based updates.

Indexed as

Hearing TestsMass ScreeningChildChild, PreschoolChinaHearingHumansInfantInfant, NewbornReferral and ConsultationChildhoodGuidelinesHearing screeningNewbornSystematic review

Identifiers

PMID35351033
PMCPMC8962144
OpenAlexW4220655026

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.