Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40307607›Full record

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

Targeting risk factors for false-positive outcomes in newborn hearing screening: a focus on mode of delivery - a case-control study.

Sivan Farladansky-Gershnabel, Liron Kariv, Hanoch Schreiber, Dorit Ravid, Gal Cohen, Tal Biron-Shental, Michal Kovo, Racheli Edelman Krivoshey, Shmuel Arnon

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

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. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing 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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Observational
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

9 authors.

Sivan Farladansky-Gershnabel *Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Meir Medical Center, Kfar Saba, Israel.
Liron Kariv *Department of Communication Disorders, Ariel University, Ariel, Israel. lironka@assuta.co.il.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0635-1867
Hanoch SchreiberDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Meir Medical Center, Kfar Saba, Israel.
Dorit RavidDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Meir Medical Center, Kfar Saba, Israel.
Gal CohenDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Meir Medical Center, Kfar Saba, Israel.
Tal Biron-ShentalDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Meir Medical Center, Kfar Saba, Israel.
Michal KovoDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Meir Medical Center, Kfar Saba, Israel.
Racheli Edelman KrivosheyFaculty of Medical & Health Sciences, Tel Aviv University, Tel Aviv, Israel.
Shmuel ArnonFaculty of Medical & Health Sciences, Tel Aviv University, Tel Aviv, Israel.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeOtoacoustic emission (OAE) is a widely utilized method for screening newborns for congenital hearing loss. While OAE-based screening has high sensitivity, it is associated with high false-positive rates when conducted shortly after birth. Previous studies found that infants delivered by cesarean section show higher false-positive rates. Nonetheless, other modes of delivery have not been investigated to date. This study aims to evaluate the impact of maternal, neonatal, and perinatal factors on hearing screening false-positive results.

methodsThis retrospective study included 5,621 infants with normal hearing. Infants were divided into two groups: those who failed the initial OAE hearing screening were assigned to the study group, and those who passed were assigned to the control group. Maternal, neonatal, and perinatal factors were extracted from medical records and analyzed to assess possible associations with failing the initial OAE screening.

resultsA total of 365 out of 5621 (6.5%) neonates failed the initial OAE hearing screening. The study group had a higher prevalence of infants delivered by elective or emergency cesarean section, as well as by vacuum-assisted delivery, compared to the control group. Multivariate analysis showed that the mode of delivery had a significant effect on false-positive results, with odds ratios of 15.5, 7.2, and 8.6 for infants born by elective cesarean section, emergency cesarean section, and vacuum delivery, respectively, compared to vaginal delivery.

conclusionInfants delivered by cesarean section or vacuum extraction have higher odds of failing the initial OAE screening when conducted within 48-72 h after birth. Further research is needed to determine the optimal timing for hearing screening.

Indexed as

Delivery, ObstetricHearing LossHearing TestsNeonatal ScreeningOtoacoustic Emissions, SpontaneousCase-Control StudiesCesarean SectionFalse Positive ReactionsFemaleHumansInfant, NewbornMalePregnancyRetrospective StudiesRisk FactorsCesarean sectionFalse-positiveHearing screeningNeonatesOtoacoustic emissionsUniversal newborn hearing screeningVacuum extraction

Identifiers

PMID40307607

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.