Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37614905›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in pediatrics2023

Mild matters: trial learnings and importance of community engagement in research for early identified bilateral mild hearing loss.

Valerie Sung, Teresa Y C Ching, Libby Smith, Vivienne Marnane, Michelle Saetre-Turner, Alison King, Rachael Beswick, Claire E Iseli, Peter Carew

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in pediatrics, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
0.5field-weighted citation impact, top 37% 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

2 citing papers in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. 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

9 authors at 6 institutions in 1 country.

Valerie SungPrevention Innovation, Population Health, Murdoch Children's Research Institute, Parkville, VIC, Australia.
Teresa Y C ChingNextSense, NextSense Institute, Sydney, NSW, Australia.
Libby SmithPrevention Innovation, Population Health, Murdoch Children's Research Institute, Parkville, VIC, Australia.
Vivienne MarnaneNational Acoustic Laboratories, Sydney, NSW, Australia.
Michelle Saetre-TurnerNational Acoustic Laboratories, Sydney, NSW, Australia.
Alison KingHearing Australia, Doncaster, VIC, Australia.
Rachael BeswickChildren's Health Queensland Hospital and Health Service, South Brisbane, QLD, Australia.
Claire E IseliOtolaryngology Department, Royal Children's Hospital, Parkville, VIC, Australia.
Peter CarewPrevention Innovation, Population Health, Murdoch Children's Research Institute, Parkville, VIC, Australia.
National Acoustic Laboratories · AURoyal Children's Hospital · AUUniversity of Melbourne · AUAustralian Hearing · AUChildren’s Health Queensland Hospital and Health Service · AUUniversity of Queensland · AU

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Introduction: Early identification of mild hearing loss has resulted in early hearing amplification without adequate evidence of effectiveness. This paper describes learnings from a pilot trial, combined with a qualitative study, to highlight the importance of community engagement in designing research studies to determine whether early amplification benefits young children with bilateral mild hearing loss. Methods: PART 1 of the study is a proof-of-concept non-blinded multi-centre randomised controlled trial (RCT) of hearing device fitting vs. no fitting aimed to gather preliminary data and determine its acceptability/feasibility in children <2 years old with bilateral mild hearing loss. Results: PART 2 is a qualitative study to understand the barriers/enablers to RCT participation. Of 40 potentially eligible families, nine (23%) declined, three were uncontactable (7%), 26 (65%) ineligible: of these, nine (35%) did not meet hearing threshold inclusion criteria, 11 (42%) were already fitted or had made decisions on fitting hearing device, two (7%) had conductive loss and four (16%) were ineligible for other reasons. Two of 11 (18%) eligible families were randomised. With the limited sample size, outcome measures were not compared between groups. Both participants completed the trial, reported the RCT to be acceptable, and neither changed group post-enrolment. Discussion: Whilst recruitment uptake could potentially be increased by altering the eligibility criteria, better communication with and reimbursement of clinicians as recruiters, and improving awareness of the study amongst external stakeholders, the RCT methodology does not conform to family-centred practice, and potentially raises ethical concerns regarding potential adverse consequences of not offering early amplification. Parental perception of losing control over choice of management due to randomisation is not an easily modifiable factor. Alternative methodological approaches without randomisation are required to determine whether hearing amplification benefits infants with mild hearing loss.

Indexed as

acceptability and feasibilityhearing amplificationnewborn hearing screeningpediatric mild bilateral hearing lossrandomized controlled clinical trial (RCT)

Identifiers

PMID37614905
PMCPMC10442842
OpenAlexW4385665620

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.