ArticleCoDAS2024
How should hyperbilirubinemia be considered in the definition of the hearing screening protocol for neonates at risk?
Article in CoDAS, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
purposeTo analyze hyperbilirubinemia as an indicator for the definition of risk protocol in newborn hearing screening (NHS) and in auditory monitoring in full-term and preterm neonates.
methodsThis is an observational, cross-sectional and retrospective study. A total of 554 children born in a public maternity hospital were included and divided into two groups: (G1) with 373 full-terms neonates; (G2) with 181 preterm neonates. Data were collected from the participant's medical records to obtain information regarding the result of the NHS, performed by recording the automated auditory brainstem response (AABR), birth conditions, clinical characteristics, interventions performed, and results of the first test of total bilirubin (TB) and indirect bilirubin (IB) as well as the peak of TB and IB. A descriptive statistical analysis of the results was performed, and the level of significance adopted was 5%.
resultsOn the NHS test, quotes of retest referral rates were smaller in G1 when compared to G2. There was no significant difference between the groups regarding type of delivery, gender, presence of Rh and ABO incompatibility, G6PD enzyme deficiency, and performance of phototherapy. TB and IB levels at the first exam and at peak time did not differ between neonates with "pass" and "fail" results on the NHS test in both groups.
conclusionBilirubin levels in the neonatal period below the recommended values for indication of exchange transfusion are not directly related to the "fail" result on the NHS tests in term and preterm neonates.
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.