SynthesisSystematic reviews2025
The relationship between auditory steady-state response and behavioural audiometry in hearing estimation for infants: a meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Systematic reviews, 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
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundAuditory Steady-State Response (ASSR) allows the identification of infants with hearing loss and consequently early intervention. Therefore, it is important to assess the accuracy of ASSR for determining hearing thresholds in infants. This study aimed to systematically review the threshold differences between air-conducted ASSR and behavioural audiometry (BA) in infants.
methodsThe population was infants younger than 2 years; the intervention was ASSR thresholds; the comparator was BA thresholds; and the outcome was the ASSR-BA threshold, i.e., the correction value in dB. PubMed, Web of Science, The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and Embase were searched. The risk of bias was evaluated using the Evidence Project risk of bias tool and the Newcastle-Ottawa Quality Assessment Scale. The mean and 95% confidence intervals (CI) were calculated for the threshold differences at four frequencies (0.5, 1, 2, and 4 kHz).
resultsOf 503 articles identified, 10 were eligible for a narrative summary, and seven were included in the meta-analysis, which had a total of 2845 ASSR-BA thresholds. The articles were of moderate quality and showed substantial heterogeneity (I
conclusionsASSR provides a reasonably accurate prediction of BA thresholds. Given the heterogeneity of the included studies, further research with larger infant populations is needed. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: The study was pre-registered in PROSPERO and followed PRISMA-P 2015 statement.
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.