ArticleEuropean archives of oto-rhino-laryngology : official journal of the European Federation of Oto-Rhino-Laryngological Societies (EUFOS) : affiliated with the German Society for Oto-Rhino-Laryngology - Head and Neck Surgery2025
Test and retest reliability of objective screening tests in neonatal hearing screening program in developing countries.
Article in European archives of oto-rhino-laryngology : official journal of the European Federation of Oto-Rhino-Laryngological Societies (EUFOS) : affiliated with the German Society for Oto-Rhino-Laryngology - Head and Neck Surgery, 2025. 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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundOur study aimed to assess the reliability of screening tests in healthy newborns across diverse hospital environments and neonatal intensive care unit (NICU) infants hospitalized for over 5 days, particularly within the framework of hearing screening in developing countries.
methodThe study comprised 100 neonates in each group: G1 (healthy infants in government general wards), G2 (healthy infants in private special wards), and G3 (infants in NICU for over 5 days). Intra-session (within 5 min) and inter-session (within a month) otoacoustic emissions (OAE) and automated auditory brainstem responses (AABR) recordings were conducted and the reliability of each test was evaluated across sessions and groups.
resultsThe weighted Kappa results showed poor within-session reliability of OAEs in G1 and G3, while G2 exhibited good reliability. AABR intra-session reliability was consistently good across all three groups. The inter-session reliability of OAEs remained poor in G1 and G3 but better in G2. Significantly, the inter-session reliability for AABR decreased in G1 and G3, with Chi-square analysis revealing a notable referral discrepancy between the initial and final assessments. Such a disparity was absent in G2, where reliability remained high. DISCUSSION: The study highlights the compromised reliability of OAEs in noisy environments, while AABR maintains good reliability under similar conditions. Additionally, AABR shows poorer reliability when conducted within a specific early timeframe, emphasizing the importance of screening after this period. This issue does not affect OAE, but OAE is limited in detecting mild conductive components. The study highlights the poor reliability of AABRs in the NICU group, attributing this to the potential for improved thresholds over time within this group.
Indexed as
Identifiers
39609300What 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.