ArticlePloS one2024
UK and US risk factors for hearing loss in neonatal intensive care unit infants.
Article in PloS one, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Pediatric hearing loss in the universal newborn hearing screening era: etiologies, risk indicators, and clinical phenotypes.Frontiers in public health · 2026Review
- Nonlinear associations of birth weight and gestational age with initial newborn hearing screening referral in a large Chinese neonatal cohort.Frontiers in public health · 2026Article
- Congenital anomalies identified during early childhood in NICU infants with bilateral hearing loss: a multi-centre longitudinal cohort study.Frontiers in neuroscience · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
importanceEarly detection and intervention of hearing loss may mitigate negative effects on children's development. Children who were admitted to the neonatal intensive care unit (NICU) as babies are particularly susceptible to hearing loss and risk factors are vital for surveillance. DESIGN, SETTING AND
participantsThis single-centre retrospective cohort study included data from 142 inborn infants who had been admitted to the NICU in a tertiary regional referral centre. Data were recorded for 71 infants with confirmed permanent congenital hearing loss hearing loss. To determine impact of NICU admission independently of prematurity, babies were individually matched with 71 inborn infants on gestational age, birthweight, and sex. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Neonatal indicators were recorded for all children with permanent congenital hearing loss. Presence of UK and US risk factors for hearing loss were collected on the neonatal population with hearing loss and for the matched controls.
resultsA fifth (21%) of babies with hearing loss had one or more UK risk factors whereas most (86%) had at least one US risk factor. False positives would be evident if US factors were used whereas the matched controls had no UK risk factors. Ten babies who at birth had no UK or US risk factors did not have any significant neonatal indicators identified in their records, one was ventilated for one day and two had a genetic anomaly. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Current risk factors for hearing loss we identified for follow-up in this high-risk group are highly specific for congenital hearing loss. UK risk factors were highly specific for hearing loss but not sensitive and conversely, US risk factors are sensitive but not specific so false positives would be recorded. A national study of neonatal indicators could provide the utility to test which combinations of risk factors provide high sensitivity without losing specificity.
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.