ArticleFrontiers in neurology2022
Cervical vestibular evoked myogenic potentials in 3-month-old infants: Comparative characteristics and feasibility for infant vestibular screening.
Article in Frontiers in neurology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- Clinical consensus on vestibular infant screening.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 · 2026Review
- International Pediatric Otolaryngology Group (IPOG) Consensus on Vestibular Testing in Children.The Laryngoscope · 2025Article
- Feasibility of Early Vestibular Screening and Developmental Changes in Air- and Bone-Conducted Cervical Vestibular Evoked Myogenic Potentials in Infants and Children with Normal Hearing.Audiology research · 2025Article
- Vestibular Assessment in Infants with Congenital or Early Onset Sensorineural Hearing Loss: Is Neonatal Vestibular Screening Required? A Scoping Review.Audiology research · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
17 authors at 6 institutions in 3 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: We compared the characteristics of air-conducted sound cervical vestibular evoked myogenic potential (ACS-cVEMP) and bone-conducted vibration cVEMP (BCV-cVEMP) among 3-month-old infants with normal hearing and sensorineural hearing loss (SNHL), and healthy adults to explore the feasibility and optimal strategies for infant vestibular screening. Methods: 29 infants (58 ears) were divided into two groups according to hearing (group I: normal hearing ears; group II: SNHL ears), 20 healthy adults were defined as group III. The results of response rate, P13 and N23 latency, P13-N23 interval, amplitudes, and corrected interaural asymmetry ratio (IAR) were recorded and compared among three groups. Results: The response rates of ACS-cVEMP in three groups were 88.89, 62.00, 100%, respectively. The P13 and N23 latencies, and P13-N23 interval did not differ significantly between group I and II ( Conclusions: Compared with adults, 3-month-old infants with normal hearing presented with equivalent response rates, shorter P13 and N23 latencies, smaller corrected amplitudes, and a wider IAR range for both ACS and BCV-cVEMP. SNHL infants had equivalent response rates of BCV-cVEMP, lower response rates of ACS-cVEMP than normal hearing infants. When responses were present, characteristics of ACS and BCV-cVEMP in SNHL infants were similar with normal hearing infants. ACS combined with BCV-cVEMP are recommended to improve the accuracy of vestibular screening.
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.