ArticleInternational journal of neonatal screening2026
Optimal Timing for Neonatal Hearing Screening in Well-Babies.
Article in International journal of neonatal screening, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Hidden and Delayed-Onset Hearing Loss in Children: Limitations of Newborn Hearing Screening and Future Directions.Children (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- Practice and challenges of newborn hearing screening: analysis of a five-year database in Italy.Italian journal of pediatrics · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
In The Netherlands, preventive child healthcare (PCHC) has been carrying out neonatal hearing screening in well-babies since 2006. The aim of this study was to examine the relationship between the age of newborns and the false positive referral rate of the first hearing screening using a transient evoked otoacoustic emission (OAE) test, to identify the most efficient timing for OAE screening. Additionally, we investigated the relationship between the type of OAE screening device (Echoscreen (ES)I/II versus ESIII) and the referral rate during the first screening. We used data from the Dutch universal well-baby neonatal hearing screening programme by PCHC between 2013 and 2023. Multilevel logistic regression analyses were performed to estimate the probability of a referral in 2023 for newborns screened in 2022 and 2023. We included a total of 1,650,506 newborns for 2013-2022 and 323,194 newborns for 2022-2023. The lowest false positive referral rates were found between days five and thirteen, ranging from 3.3 to 3.9%. ESIII significantly increased the probability of a referral compared to ESI/II (odds ratio = 1.84, 95% confidence interval = 1.65-2.06). In conclusion, the timing of neonatal hearing screening significantly impacts the false positive referral rate. Furthermore, the likelihood of a referral is significantly higher when using the ESIII compared to the ESI/II.
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.