ArticleBulletin of the World Health Organization2025
Newborn screening for hearing and sight, Cameroon.
Article in Bulletin of the World Health Organization, 2025. 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
25 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: To evaluate a combined hearing and eye screening model for newborns attending immunization clinics in Cameroon. Methods: We analysed data from a screening project that took place between November 2021 and February 2024, which assessed both the hearing and eyes of newborns using otoacoustic emission and fundal reflex tests, respectively. We then evaluated sensitivity, specificity and predictive values of screening conducted by trained auxiliary staff versus specialists. Findings: We screened 1807 newborns, of which 54% (976) were female. The median age at screening was 13 days. Eight percent of newborns (141/1807) did not pass the otoacoustic emission test; screeners scheduled these newborns for a second-line otoacoustic emission test within three months. Only 28% (39/141) returned for the repeat otoacoustic emission test. Of the returning babies, 33% (13/39) still did not pass, and screeners referred them for an auditory brainstem response threshold test. Screeners detected an absent fundal reflex in 2% (27) of babies. Compared to specialists, trained auxiliary staff showed 82% sensitivity and 99% specificity in hearing screening; predictive values were 90% (positive) and 99% (negative). For eye screening, sensitivity was 67% and specificity 99%, with predictive values of 86% (positive) and 98% (negative). Conclusion: Combined screening performed by trained auxiliary staff in immunization clinics offers a promising approach to screening newborns' hearing and eyes, enabling broader population coverage with fewer resources. Combined screening conducted at immunization clinics includes both hospital- and community-born babies and is therefore suitable for countries with a high number of out-of-hospital births.
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.