Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39660587›Full record

ArticleThe journal of international advanced otology2024

The Effectiveness and Cost Analysis of a Pilot Newborn Hearing Screening Program at a Hospital in a Low- to Middle-Income Country.

Pariya Lertbussarakam, Pittayapon Pitathawatchai

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in The journal of international advanced otology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Pariya LertbussarakamDepartment of Otolaryngology, Hatyai Hospital, Songkhla, Thailand.
Pittayapon PitathawatchaiDepartment of Otolaryngology, Prince of Songkla University Faculty of Medicine, Songkhla, Thailand.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: When a universal newborn hearing screening program is not feasible, particularly in the early stages of its establishment when it requires a great deal of effort and resources, a smaller scale in screening, such as a specific geographical subset or targeted group, is suggested rather than doing nothing. This study aims to pilot a newborn hearing screening program at a hospital in a low- to middle-income country and determine its effectiveness and costs in the context of a lack of qualified audiologists. Methods: All high-risk births at Hatyai Hospital were recruited for newborn hearing screening between January and December 2021. Newborns who failed 2 stages of transient evoked otoacoustic emissions screening were referred for diagnostic assessment and subsequent interventions. The program's effectiveness was assessed based on the standards of the American Academy of Pediatrics. All costs related to screening, diagnostic, and intervention stages were also evaluated. Results: Out of 883 newborns, 792 newborns were screened, resulting in a 95.1% screening coverage. The referral rate regarding the diagnostic stage was 3.9%. Also, 28.3% and 12.9% lost-to-follow-up rates were observed in the secondscreening and diagnostic assessment stages, respectively. Ten children were confirmed as having permanent hearing loss, with a prevalence of 1.3%. The total cost was US$13 611, and the cost (for the screening stage) per case screened was US$4. Conclusion: The program was considered effective with 2 out of 3 benchmarks achieved.

Indexed as

Hearing LossHearing TestsNeonatal ScreeningCost-Benefit AnalysisCosts and Cost AnalysisDeveloping CountriesFemaleHumansInfant, NewbornMaleOtoacoustic Emissions, SpontaneousPilot ProjectsProgram EvaluationCost analysiseffectivenessnewborn hearing screeningThailand

Identifiers

PMID39660587
PMCPMC11639580

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.