Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42200350›Full record

ArticleClinical otolaryngology : official journal of ENT-UK ; official journal of Netherlands Society for Oto-Rhino-Laryngology & Cervico-Facial Surgery2026

Evaluation of the NHS R67 Monogenic Hearing Loss Panel in a Single UK Centre.

Irmak Sakin, Chloe Swords, Jessica Ball, Elizabeth Oakley-Hannibal, Harriet Cunniffe, Simon Holden, Manohar Bance, Jessica Bewick

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Clinical otolaryngology : official journal of ENT-UK ; official journal of Netherlands Society for Oto-Rhino-Laryngology & Cervico-Facial Surgery, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors.

Irmak SakinOtolaryngology, Cambridge University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Cambridge, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7474-4334
Chloe SwordsOtolaryngology, Cambridge University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Cambridge, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0431-4491
Jessica BallOtolaryngology, Cambridge University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Cambridge, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7331-7848
Elizabeth Oakley-HannibalClinical Genetics, Cambridge University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Cambridge, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0001-4697-7111
Harriet CunniffeOtolaryngology, Cambridge University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Cambridge, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8580-7692
Simon HoldenClinical Genetics, Cambridge University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Cambridge, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0001-8314-5816
Manohar BanceOtolaryngology, Cambridge University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Cambridge, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8050-3617
Jessica BewickOtolaryngology, Cambridge University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Cambridge, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5424-3129

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionThe NHS R67 genetic hearing loss panel was introduced in England in 2021 and has expanded the diagnostic approach to hearing loss. This study aimed to evaluate the diagnostic yield and clinical utility of the panel in paediatric and adult patients assessed through a tertiary multidisciplinary genetic hearing loss clinic.

methodsA retrospective case review was conducted of patients referred to a tertiary genetic hearing loss multidisciplinary clinic who underwent R67 monogenic hearing loss analysis. Demographic data, referral patterns, family history, hearing loss severity, age at diagnosis, congenital cytomegalovirus testing, radiological findings, genetic results and hearing habilitation or rehabilitation strategies were analysed descriptively. Diagnostic yield was compared across hearing loss severity categories.

resultsEighty-four patients were included, comprising 46 children and 38 adults. A monogenic diagnosis was identified in 48.8% of patients overall, with a higher yield in children than adults: 63.0% versus 31.6%, respectively. Variants of uncertain significance were identified in 7.1% of patients. Hearing loss severity was significantly associated with identification of a genetic cause, although 35% of patients with an identified genetic cause had mild or moderate hearing loss.

conclusionThe R67 monogenic hearing loss panel is a valuable diagnostic tool for investigating sensorineural hearing loss in children and adults, particularly when delivered through multidisciplinary clinics that support counselling and clinical decision-making. Further reporting is needed to refine referral criteria and support patient selection for targeted therapies.

Indexed as

Genetic TestingHearing LossAdolescentAdultAgedChildChild, PreschoolFemaleHumansInfantMaleMiddle AgedRetrospective StudiesSeverity of Illness IndexUnited KingdomYoung Adultclinical geneticsdiagnosticshearing lossotologypaediatric ENTsensorineural hearing loss

Identifiers

PMID42200350
PMCPMC13432516

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.