Trial reportCoDAS2026
Accuracy of tympanometry cutoff points in children from Central-Western Brazil.
Trial report in CoDAS, 2026. 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeThis study evaluated tympanometric cutoff points (tympanometric peak pressure and static compliance) for transient evoked otoacoustic emissions (TEOAEs) and determined their diagnostic accuracy.
methodsThis analytical study, based on a randomized clinical trial, included 84 children (6-42 months; median 24 months) from public childcare centers in Brazil. Associations between cutoff points and TEOAEs were verified by Fisher's exact test and Chi-square. Kappa assessed agreement between ears, and the correlation between tympanometric peak pressure and static compliance was analyzed by Spearman. Diagnostic accuracy was determined using ROC (Receiver Operating Characteristic) curves and confirmed with EpiDat 3.1.
resultsIn the 84 children, 66 right ears and 73 left ears were examined; however, 42 ears were randomly selected from each side for the final analysis. A significant correlation was found between peak pressure and static compliance. ROC analysis identified -180 daPa as the most accurate cutoff (AUC = 0.781; 95% CI: 0.656-0.905; p < 0.001). EpiDat indicated a specificity of 93.9%, a sensitivity of 55.6%, and an overall accuracy of 85.7%. Static compliance <0.2 mL showed comparable performance (specificity = 98.5%, sensitivity = 50.0%, accuracy = 88.1%).
conclusionThe cutoff point of -180 daPa combined with static compliance <0.2 mL improved screening accuracy and reduced unnecessary referrals. It provided the best balance between specificity, sensitivity, and accuracy, aligning more closely with TEOAEs results and supporting updating this tympanometric criterion in infant hearing screening.
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.