ArticleAudiology research2026
Exploring and Overcoming Challenges for Efficient Audiological Testing in Children Under 5 Years of Age-Screening with Otoacoustic Emissions.
Article in Audiology research, 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
18 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
BACKGROUND/
objectivesCisplatin-exposed pediatric cancer patients are at increased risk of ototoxicity, particularly those under 5 years of age. In this group, audiological monitoring is challenging, as interpretation of otoacoustic emissions (OAEs) and tympanometry, used to supplement behavioral audiometry, is subject to interindividual variability. This study aimed to identify key challenges and establish an international consensus on optimal testing procedures and interpretation criteria for assessing early cochlear damage.
methodsAudiological data from 11 children (<5 years) exposed to cisplatin in utero were evaluated. An international panel of 10 pediatric oncology audiology experts reviewed tympanometry, transient evoked OAEs (TEOAEs), and distortion product OAEs (DPOAEs). Areas of disagreement were analyzed, and consensus was sought regarding testing conditions, interpretation, and clinical application.
resultsAgreement on cochlear status was good in 10/22 ears, moderate in 3/22 ears, and poor in 9/22 ears, highlighting substantial variability in interpretation. Consensus was achieved on minimal technical and interpretative requirements for OAE testing in this population. The panel proposes a classification framework integrating OAEs and tympanometry to guide clinical follow-up. Importantly, normal OAE results were not considered sufficient to exclude ototoxic damage or mild hearing loss.
conclusionsOAEs, particularly DPOAEs, are valuable as a screening tool in ototoxicity monitoring programs for young children, provided that testing conditions and interpretation are standardized. However, OAEs alone are insufficient for definitive assessment. Longitudinal monitoring and confirmatory testing with behavioral audiometry or ABR/ASSR remain essential. Further validation of the proposed classification system is warranted.
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.