ArticleNeural plasticity2021
Hearing Screening Combined with Target Gene Panel Testing Increased Etiological Diagnostic Yield in Deaf Children.
Article in Neural plasticity, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 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
10 citing papers in PubMed, 15 citations in OpenAlex.
- GDC: Integration of Multi-Omic and Phenotypic Resources to Unravel the Genetic Pathogenesis of Hearing Loss.Advanced science (Weinheim, Baden-Wurttemberg, Germany) · 2025Article
- [Comparison and study of multiple scales results in children with cochlear reimplantation, mainly the speech, spatial, and other qualities of hearing scale for parents].Lin chuang er bi yan hou tou jing wai ke za zhi = Journal of clinical otorhinolaryngology head and neck surgery · 2025Article
- [Perioperative safety assessment and complications follow-up of simultaneous bilateral cochlear implantation in young infants].Lin chuang er bi yan hou tou jing wai ke za zhi = Journal of clinical otorhinolaryngology head and neck surgery · 2025Article
- [Amplification effect of hearing mechanics in unilateral hearing loss].Lin chuang er bi yan hou tou jing wai ke za zhi = Journal of clinical otorhinolaryngology head and neck surgery · 2025Article
- Low frequency of SLC26A4 c.919-2A > G variant among patients with nonsyndromic hearing loss in Yunnan of Southwest China.BMC medical genomics · 2024Article
- Multicolor melting curve analysis discloses high carrier frequency of hearing loss-associated variants among neonates in Jiangsu province.Molecular genetics & genomic medicine · 2024Observational
- Analysis of Serum Inflammatory Markers in Infants Under 6 Months of Age with Non-Syndromic Moderate and Severe Hearing Loss Associated with GJB2 Gene Mutations.Medical science monitor : international medical journal of experimental and clinical research · 2023Article
- Association Between Expanded Genomic Sequencing Combined With Hearing Screening and Detection of Hearing Loss Among Newborns in a Neonatal Intensive Care Unit.JAMA network open · 2022Article
- Identification of four novel variants in theFrontiers in genetics · 2022Article
- Audiological Phenotype, Natural History, and Intervention in Chinese Patients With Auditory Neuropathy Caused by OTOF Variants.Ear and hearingArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Genetic testing is the gold standard for exploring the etiology of congenital hearing loss. Here, we enrolled 137 Chinese patients with congenital hearing loss to describe the molecular epidemiology by using 127 gene panel testing or 159 variant testing. Sixty-three deaf children received 127 gene panel testing, while seventy-four patients received 159 variant testing. By use of 127 gene panel testing, more mutant genes and variants were identified. The most frequent mutant genes were
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.