ArticleScientific reports2025
Comparison of clinical performance of MeltPro hearing loss assay and targeted next generation sequencing assay for genetic screening of hearing loss.
Article in Scientific reports, 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
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Hearing loss (HL) is a common sensorineural defect. Wide-spread genetic screening is important for early diagnosis and intervention. We aimed to evaluate and compare the clinical performance of the MeltPro HL assay and a targeted next-generation sequencing assay for genetic screening of HL and to explore the relationship between the c.109G > A genotype and the HL phenotype. From December 2021 to December 2022, we recruited 220 patients who agreed to undergo the MeltPro HL and targeted next-generation sequencing assays for genetic HL screening. In our cohort, the degree of HL was mainly mild to moderate (78.64%, 173/220). In the MeltPro HL and targeted next-generation sequencing genetic screening assays, 34 patients (34/220, 15.45%) and 145 patients (145/220, 65.91%), respectively, were genetic positive for variants in HL-related genes. GJB2 and SLC26A4 were the two most common HL-causing genes detected among our cohorts of outpatients in Xiamen. The most prevalent variants of GJB2 and SLC26A4 were c.109G > A and c.919-2 A > G, with allelic frequencies of 52.95% (233/440) and 2.50% (11/440), respectively. In addition, a biallelic c.109G > A variant was identified in 115 (79.31%, 115/145) patients, and 93.91% (108/115) of them had mild-to-moderate HL. Our data showed that the MeltPro HL assay is an easy-to-use, satisfactory, and cost-effective genetic screening method for routine use in most laboratories, especially in remote areas of China. It has great potential to improve the diagnosis and prevention of HL in Xiamen when variant c.109G > A is included.
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.