ArticleExperimental and therapeutic medicine2024
Newborn concurrent hearing and genetic screening for hearing impairment: A systematic review and meta‑analysis.
Article in Experimental and therapeutic medicine, 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
- Integrated hearing and genetic screening for neonatal deafness in a resource-limited region: insights from Qingyuan, China.Frontiers in genetics · 2026Article
- A survey of strategies for the early diagnosis of hearing loss in infants: a scoping review.CoDAS · 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
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Hearing loss is the most prevalent neurosensory disorder in humans, with significant implications for language, social and cognitive development if not diagnosed and treated early. The present systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to determine the rate of hearing screening pass and genetic screening failure [universal newborn hearing screening (UNHS) pass/genetic failure] and to investigate the advantages of combining newborn hearing and genetic screening for newborn hearing impairment. The PubMed, Embase and Cochrane databases were searched from inception to September 2023 to identify studies reporting the combination of neonatal hearing screening with genetic screening. Duplicate literature, unpublished literature, studies with incomplete data, animal experiments, literature reviews and systematic studies were excluded. All the data were processed by STATA15.1 statistical software. A total of nine cross-sectional studies were included in this meta-analysis. The sample sizes ranged from 1,716 to 180,469, and there were a total of 377,688 participants. The pooled results revealed that the prevalence of passing the UNHS while failing genetic screening was 0.31% (95% CI, 0.22-0.41%). The prevalence of UNHS pass and gap junction protein beta 2 and solute carrier family 26 member 4 variant screen failure was 0.01% (95% CI, 0.00-0.02%) and 0.00% (95% CI, 0.00%), respectively, while the prevalence of mitochondrially encoded 12S RRNA variant screening failure and UNHS pass was 0.21% (95% CI, 0.18-0.26%). Combined screening has a significant advantage over pure hearing screening, especially in terms of identifying newborns with mitochondrial gene mutations that render them sensitive to certain medications. In clinical practice, decision-makers can consider practical circumstances and leverage the benefits of combined newborn hearing and genetic screening for early diagnosis, early counseling, and early intervention in patients with hearing loss.
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.