ArticleFrontiers in pediatrics2025
Delayed-onset hearing loss in first-grade students who previously passed the newborn hearing screening.
Article in Frontiers in pediatrics, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Hidden and Delayed-Onset Hearing Loss in Children: Limitations of Newborn Hearing Screening and Future Directions.Children (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- Current Status of Pediatric Hearing Loss Cases in Oita University Hospital From 2016 to 2019.Clinical medicine insights. Pediatrics · 2026Article
- Pediatric hearing loss in the universal newborn hearing screening era: etiologies, risk indicators, and clinical phenotypes.Frontiers in public health · 2026Review
- Knowledge and attitude among the mothers of children in age group 1-5 years regarding childhood hearing loss.PloS one · 2026Article
- The Otoacoustic Emissions in the Universal Neonatal Hearing Screening: An Update on Selected Asian States (2005 to 2025).Children (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Review
- School-age hearing screening outcomes: analysis of 24,258 students.European journal of pediatrics · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Newborn hearing screening is essential for the early detection of hearing loss, enabling timely intervention that supports communication and academic success. However, some children may develop delayed-onset hearing loss, which can go undetected without ongoing monitoring. Even mild hearing loss can affect educational development, highlighting the importance of preschool hearing screening. This study aimed to investigate the prevalence of delayed-onset hearing loss in first-grade students who had previously passed newborn hearing screening, emphasizing the need for early identification. Methods: A cross-sectional study was conducted involving 130 first-grade students. The screening protocol included otoscopic examination, Pure Tone Audiometry (PTA), tympanometry, and Transient Evoked Otoacoustic Emissions (TEOAE). Passing criteria were defined as PTA thresholds ≤20 dBHL at 500-4,000 Hz, Type A or Ad tympanogram, and a TEOAE signal-to-noise ratio ≥3 dB. Results: Of the participants, 80 (61.5%) passed the hearing screening, while 50 (38.5%) failed. Among those who failed, 43 (86%) showed abnormal tympanometry results, indicating potential conductive hearing loss, whereas 7 (14%) failed both OAE and PTA despite having normal tympanometry and were confirmed to have sensorineural hearing loss (SNHL). The prevalence of delayed-onset SNHL was therefore 5.4%. Among the risk factors examined, consanguinity was significantly associated with the presence of hearing loss. Conclusion: The observed 5.4% prevalence of delayed-onset sensorineural hearing loss among first-grade students underscores the importance of implementing preschool hearing screening to ensure early detection and timely intervention.
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.