ArticleChildren (Basel, Switzerland)2024
Neonatal Hearing Screening Using Wideband Absorbance and Otoacoustic Emissions Measured Under Ambient and Pressurized Conditions.
Article in Children (Basel, Switzerland), 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
Abstract
backgroundThe objective was to analyze wideband acoustic absorbance and transiently evoked otoacoustic emissions (TEOAEs) from newborns without risk indicators of hearing loss and test the effectiveness of measuring TEOAEs under pressurized ear canal conditions.
methodsEvaluation of 102 newborns from a maternity hospital, who stayed in the well-baby nursery and did not have risk indicators for hearing loss. The procedures involved wideband tympanometry and TEOAEs performed at ambient pressure (AP) and at a pressure corresponding to maximum compliance (PP). Newborns were then divided into three groups according to their AP and PP results: G1 (PASS/PASS), G2 (FAIL/PASS), and G3 (FAIL/FAIL).
resultsComparing the three groups, pressurization improved the pass rate for G2 only. For wideband absorbance, differences were statistically significant for frequencies of 2, 3, and 6 kHz, with lower values under the AP condition. For TEOAEs, the differences were statistically significant in all bands, with lower values under the AP condition.
conclusionsPressurization was effective in detecting more TEOAEs in G2, thus reducing the number of failures in neonatal hearing screening and reducing the need to return for retesting.
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.