SynthesisBMC pediatrics2022
Protocol and programme factors associated with referral and loss to follow-up from newborn hearing screening: a systematic review.
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 10 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
10 citing papers in PubMed.
- Hidden and Delayed-Onset Hearing Loss in Children: Limitations of Newborn Hearing Screening and Future Directions.Children (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- Universal newborn hearing screening outcomes based on national health policy in Chiangrai Prachanukroh Hospital, Thailand.BMC health services research · 2026Article
- Evaluation of optimal postnatal timing for the screening of neonatal hearing via transient evoked oto-acoustic emission (TEOAE): a retrospective cross-sectional study.Irish journal of medical science · 2026Article
- The impact of a two-stage newborn hearing screening protocol for early diagnosis of hearing loss.Acta otorhinolaryngologica Italica : organo ufficiale della Societa italiana di otorinolaringologia e chirurgia cervico-facciale · 2026Article
- Challenges and Strategies of Newborn Hearing Screening Programs Worldwide: A Scoping Review.Medical journal of the Islamic Republic of Iran · 2026Review
- A survey of strategies for the early diagnosis of hearing loss in infants: a scoping review.CoDAS · 2026Article
- Implementation and Evaluation of a Newborn Hearing Screening Database in a Resource-Limited Setting: Advantages and Limitations.Children (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Community-based infant hearing screening: Outcomes of a rural pilot programme.The South African journal of communication disorders = Die Suid-Afrikaanse tydskrif vir Kommunikasieafwykings · 2024Article
- Neonatal hearing screening - does failure in TEOAE screening matter when the AABR test is passed?European 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 · 2024Article
- Implementation of Newborn Hearing Screening in Albania.International journal of neonatal screening · 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundAn effective newborn hearing screening programme has low referral rate and low loss to follow-up (LTFU) rate after referral from initial screening. This systematic review identified studies evaluating the effect of protocol and programme factors on these two outcomes, including the screening method used and the infant group.
methodsFive databases were searched (latest: April 2021). Included studies reported original data from newborn hearing screening and described the target outcomes against a protocol or programme level factor. Studies were excluded if results were only available for one risk condition, for each ear, or for < 100 infants, or if methodological bias was observed. Included studies were evaluated for quality across three domains: sample, screening and outcome, using modified criteria from the Ottawa-Newcastle and QUADAS-2 scales. Findings from the included studies were synthesised in tables, figures and text.
resultsFifty-eight studies reported on referral rate, 8 on LTFU rate, and 35 on both. Only 15 studies defined LTFU. Substantial diversity in referral and LTFU rate was observed across studies. Twelve of fourteen studies that evaluated screening method showed lower referral rates with aABR compared to TEOAE for well babies (WB). Rescreening before hospital discharge and screening after 3 days of age reduced referral rates. Studies investigating LTFU reported lower rates for programmes that had audiologist involvement, did not require fees for step 2, were embedded in a larger regional or national programme, and scheduled follow-up in a location accessible to the families. In programmes with low overall LTFU, higher LTFU was observed for infants from the NICU compared to WB.
conclusionAlthough poor reporting and exclusion of non-English articles may limit the generalisability from this review, key influential factors for referral and LTFU rates were identified. Including aABR in WB screening can effectively reduce referral rates, but it is not the only solution. The reported referral and LTFU rates vary largely across studies, implying the contribution of several parameters identified in this review and the context in which the programme is performed. Extra attention should be paid to infants with higher risk for hearing impairment to ensure their return to follow-up.
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.