ReviewLife (Basel, Switzerland)2026
Diagnostic Yield in Childhood-Onset Hearing Loss: A Meta-Analysis and Systematic Review.
Review in Life (Basel, Switzerland), 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Uncovering the Genetic Landscape of Pediatric Hearing Loss Along the Texas-Mexico Border.Clinical genetics · 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This systematic review and meta-analysis aims to determine the diagnostic yield of whole-exome and targeted-panel sequencing in children with hearing loss. We searched PubMed, Google Scholar, and the Cochrane Library to identify studies describing cohorts of >50 families undergoing whole exome or targeted panel sequencing. Studies were excluded if they pre-screened for common deafness genes without including the data in final analyses, focused on syndromic hearing loss, or lacked diagnostic yield information. Meta-analysis employed a random-effects model of single proportions to determine yield across included studies. The pooled diagnostic yield for bilateral hearing loss was ~47%, while unilateral cases demonstrated a yield of only ~5% across both testing methods. These findings demonstrate that the diagnostic yield for bilateral hearing loss exceeds that of other conditions frequently requiring clinical genetic testing, such as epilepsy and intellectual disability, though this advantage does not extend to unilateral hearing loss. These results have important implications for healthcare policy decisions regarding genetic testing guidelines and funding.
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.