ArticlemedRxiv : the preprint server for health sciences2024
Multidisciplinary clinical assessment and interventions for childhood listening difficulty and auditory processing disorder: Relation between research findings and clinical practice.
Article in medRxiv : the preprint server for health sciences, 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
- Updated by
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Purpose: Listening difficulty (LiD), often classified as auditory processing disorder (APD), has been studied in both research and clinic settings. The aim of this study was to examine the predictive relation between these two settings. In our "SICLiD" research study, children with normal audiometry, but caregiver-reported LiD, performed poorly on both listening and cognitive tests. Here we examined results of clinical assessments and interventions for these children in relation to research performance. Methods: Study setting was a tertiary pediatric hospital. Electronic medical records were reviewed for 64 children aged 6-13 years recruited into a SICLiD LiD group based on a caregiver report (ECLiPS). The review focused on clinical assessments and interventions provided by Audiology, Occupational Therapy, Psychology (Developmental and Behavioral Pediatrics), and Speech-Language Pathology services, prior to study participation. Descriptive statistics on clinical encounters, identified conditions, and interventions were compared with quantitative, standardized performance on research tests. Z-scores were compared for participants with and without each clinical condition using univariate and logistic prediction analyses. Results: Overall, 24 clinical categories related to LiD, including APD, were identified. Common conditions were attention (32%), language (28%), hearing (18%), anxiety (16%), and autism spectrum (6%) disorders. Performance on research tests varied significantly between providers, conditions, and interventions. Quantitative research data combined with caregiver reports provided reliable predictions of all clinical conditions except APD. Individual test significant correlations were scarce, but included the SCAN composite score, which predicted clinical language and attention difficulties, but not APD diagnoses. Conclusions: The variety of disciplines, assessments, conditions and interventions revealed here supports previous studies showing that LiD is a multifaceted problem of neurodevelopment. Comparisons between clinical- and research-based assessments suggest a path that prioritizes caregiver reports and selected psychometric tests for screening and diagnostic purposes.
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.