ReviewChildren (Basel, Switzerland)2025
Early Hearing Interventions for Children with Hearing Loss in Africa: A 21-Year Scoping Review (2004-2025).
Review in Children (Basel, Switzerland), 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Delays in diagnosis and intervention for paediatric hearing loss: the role of parental psychological inflexibility in a multicentre Iranian study.BMJ paediatrics open · 2026Observational
- The Otoacoustic Emissions in the Universal Neonatal Hearing Screening in China and India: An Update on the Asian States (2005 to 2025).Children (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- The Otoacoustic Emissions in the Universal Neonatal Hearing Screening: An Update on Selected Asian States (2005 to 2025).Children (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe objectives of this scoping review were (a) to identify the most recent (in a 21-year span) literature information about hearing intervention programs in Africa and (b) to provide data on the intervention practices, policies and the factors prohibiting the larger diffusion of the hearing technologies in the African states.
methodsQueries were conducted via the PubMed and Scopus databases for the time window from 2005 to 2025. The mesh terms used were "hearing aids", "cochlear implants", and "hearing intervention Africa". Only research articles and review papers were considered as good candidates. The standard English language filter was not used, so as to also identify information from non-English-speaking scientific communities and groups.
resultsData from eight papers were considered, reflecting the hearing intervention practices of six African states. These reports, although integral in themselves, examine different aspects of children's hearing identification and grouping the information was not entirely feasible. It is assumed that since there are no organized or centralized NHS programs in the African states, the primary driver of hearing identification appears to be parental vigilance. The cochlear implant intervention is not very diffused mainly due to complex economic factors of the weak African economies. Anecdotal data refer to cultural bias versus hearing intervention technology, but this information needs further elucidation.
conclusionsThe information on the African programs on hearing intervention policies is quite scarce, as in the case of African NHS. Within this context, it is very important to convince audiologists and ENTs from the African localized programs to publish their data in mainstream channels so that new information can be assessed.
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.