Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36259421›Full record

SynthesisJournal of global health2022

Effectiveness of universal newborn hearing screening: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

Karen Edmond, Shelly Chadha, Cynthia Hunnicutt, Natalie Strobel, Vinaya Manchaiah, Christine Yoshinga-Itano, Universal Newborn Hearing Screening (UNHS) review group

Open access · goldAbstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Journal of global health, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 21 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
21citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
4.9field-weighted citation impact, top 3% 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

21 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 40 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Review
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Screening for psychological problems in deaf and hard of hearing students.Journal of deaf studies and deaf education · 2025
    Article
  12. Late onset hearing loss in very low birth weight infants.Journal of perinatology : official journal of the California Perinatal Association · 2025
    Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Community-based infant hearing screening: Outcomes of a rural pilot programme.The South African journal of communication disorders = Die Suid-Afrikaanse tydskrif vir Kommunikasieafwykings · 2024
    Article
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. Article
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

7 authors at 4 institutions in 5 countries.

Karen EdmondWorld Health Organization, Geneva, Switzerland.
Shelly ChadhaWorld Health Organization, Geneva, Switzerland.
Cynthia HunnicuttUniversity of Colorado Boulder, Colorado, USA.
Natalie StrobelEdith Cowan University, Perth, Australia.
Vinaya ManchaiahUniversity of Colorado Anschutz Medical Campus, Colorado, USA.
Christine Yoshinga-ItanoUniversity of Colorado Boulder, Colorado, USA.
Universal Newborn Hearing Screening (UNHS) review group
University of Colorado Boulder · USWorld Health Organization · CHEdith Cowan University · AUUniversity of Pretoria · ZA

Funding

World Health Organization 001
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Permanent bilateral hearing loss (PBHL) is a serious condition in newborns, with a prevalence of at least one per 1000 live births. However, there has been no recent systematic review and meta-analysis of the effectiveness of universal newborn hearing screening programs (UNHS). Methods: We registered our study protocol on PROSPERO CRD42020175451. Primary outcomes were any identification of PBHL (ie, PBHL diagnosed at any time), age of identification of PBHL, and neurodevelopment. Two reviewers searched standard databases to March 2022 and extracted data. We used fixed and random effects meta-analysis to pool data and graded the certainty of evidence using standard methods. Results: The search retrieved 2834 records. We identified five studies reporting on the effects of UNHS vs no UNHS in 1 023 610 newborns. The relative risk of being identified with PBHL before nine months in infants with UNHS compared to infants without UNHS was 3.28 (95% confidence interval (95% CI) = 1.84, 5.85, one study, 1 023 497 newborns, low certainty evidence). The mean difference in the age of identification of PBHL in infants with UNHS compared to infants without UNHS was 13.2 months earlier (95% CI = -26.3, -0.01, two studies, 197 newborns, very low certainty evidence). The relative risk of infants eventually being identified with PBHL in infants with UNHS compared to infants without UNHS was 1.01 (95% CI = 0.89, 1.14, three studies, 1 023 497 newborns, low certainty evidence). At the latest follow-up at 3-8 years, the standardised mean difference (SMD) in receptive language development between infants with UNHS compared to infants without UNHS was 0.60 z scores (95% CI = 0.07, 1.13, one study, 101 children, low certainty evidence) and the mean difference in developmental quotients was 7.72 (95% CI = -0.03, 15.47, three studies, 334 children, very low certainty evidence). The SMD in expressive language development was 0.39 z scores (95% CI = -0.20, 0.97, one study, 87 children, low certainty evidence) and the mean difference in developmental quotients was 10.10 scores (95% CI = 1.47, 18.73, 3 studies, 334 children, very low certainty evidence). Conclusions: UNHS programs result in earlier identification of PBHL and may improve neurodevelopment. UNHS should be implemented across high-, middle-, and low-income countries. Registration: PROSPERO (CRD42020175451).

Indexed as

HearingHearing TestsChildHumansInfantInfant, NewbornRisk

Identifiers

PMID36259421
PMCPMC9579831
OpenAlexW4306773389

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.