ArticleInternational journal of neonatal screening2023
Universal Newborn Hearing Screening Program: 10-Year Outcome and Follow-Up from a Screening Center in Germany.
Article in International journal of neonatal screening, 2023. 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.
- Universal newborn hearing screening in Southwest Iran: coverage, risk factors, and outcomes in a large-scale population.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 · 2026Article
- Challenges and Strategies of Newborn Hearing Screening Programs Worldwide: A Scoping Review.Medical journal of the Islamic Republic of Iran · 2026Review
- Newborn Hearing Screening-Polish Experience: A Narrative Review.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Review
- The Otoacoustic Emissions in the Universal Neonatal Hearing Screening: An Update on the European Data (2004 to 2024).Children (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Review
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
Regular reporting of quality control is important in newborn hearing screening, ensuring early diagnosis and intervention. This study reports on a population-based newborn hearing screening program in North-Rhine, Germany and a hospital-based screening at a University Hospital for 2007-2016. The two-staged 'screening' and 'follow-up' program involving TEOAE and AABR recruited newborns through participating birth facilities. Results were sent to the regional tracking center, and the data were analyzed based on recommended benchmarks. The percentage of newborns from the participating birth facilities in the region increased from 1.4% in 2007 to 57.5% in 2016. The 10-year coverage rate for these newborns was 98.7%, the referral rate after a failed two-step screening was 3.4%, and the lost-to-follow-up rate was 1%. At the hospital, >95% of the screened newborns completed screening within 30 days, the 10-year referral rate was 5%, and 64% were referred within 3 months of age. The median time for screening completion was 6 days after birth, for referral it was 74 days after birth, and for diagnosis it was 55 days after birth. Regional-centralized tracking centers with uniform structure are necessary for proper quality control. Obligatory participation of birthing facilities and quality reports may improve performance, but the recommended quality criteria need considerable financial and infrastructural expenditure.
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.