ArticleWorld journal of otorhinolaryngology - head and neck surgery2022
Screening strategy and time points for newborn hearing re-screening with high risk factors.
Article in World journal of otorhinolaryngology - head and neck surgery, 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.
- Neonatal Hearing Rescreening in a Second-Level Hospital: Problems and Solutions.Audiology research · 2023Article
- Screening strategy and time points for newborn hearing re-screening with high risk factors.World journal of otorhinolaryngology - head and neck surgery · 2022Article
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
Objective: To compare and analyze the pass rate and screening strategy of hearing rescreening for newborns with high risk factors. Methods: Retrospective chart review of high-risk newborns who failed their initial newborn hearing screen and subsequently underwent secondary hearing tests from June 2011 to June 2018 in Guangzhou Women and Children's Medical Center were performed. Results: Eight hundred and sixty-eight newborns with high risk factors were included in the study. The 57-70 days (83.5%) and 71-84 days (83.4%) group had the highest pass rate compared with 42-56 days (75.8%) and < 42 days (68.3%) group. As for different screening strategies, the pass rate of OAE(otoacoustic emissions), AABR (auto auditory brainstem response) and OAE + AABR was the highest in 57-70 days group and 71-84 days group, respectively. The OAE + AABR had the lowest pass rate compared to the other two modalities. When the pass rate was compared as different risk factors, the 57-70 days and 71-84 days group also had the highest pass rate compared with 42-56 days and < 42 days group and the pass rate had no significant differences among various risk factors group. Conclusion: Our results showed that all the pass rate of OAE, AABR and OAE + AABR was the highest in 57-70 days group and 71-84 days group with significant difference, suggesting that the delayed screening time (>57 days) may increase the re-screening pass rate and reduce anxiety of parents, which is of great significance for clinical work.
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.