Observational studyCoDAS2026
Application of a low-cost instrument to identify risk for hearing disorders in a municipal health network.
Observational study 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTo evaluate the performance of the PETIT application (automated tablet-based screening) compared with conventional sweep screening in identifying the risk of hearing impairment in school-aged children, using headphones with passive noise cancellation.
methodsCross-sectional observational study including 122 children (aged 5 to 8 years) from the public school of Santana de Parnaíba. The following procedures were performed: otoscopy; automated hearing screening via tablet (with Sennheiser HD-280 headphones); and conventional sweep screening. Part of the sample also underwent pure-tone audiometry. Statistical analysis used binomial and binary logistic regression tests, along with the calculation of sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy.
resultsThere was significant association between the results of the sweep screening and PETIT, as well as the coefficient of the predictor variable (conventional audiometry) was significant to the performance in the sweep screening. For PETIT, a sensitivity of 85.7%, specificity of 100%, and accuracy of 99.18% were observed.
conclusionThe results suggest that this tool has promising applicability in schools for identifying children at risk of hearing impairments.
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.