ArticleRevista da Associacao Medica Brasileira (1992)2026
Newborn hearing screening: outcomes and management of infants.
Article in Revista da Associacao Medica Brasileira (1992), 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveThe aim of this study was to evaluate the prevalence and characteristics of hearing loss among infants referred after newborn hearing screening in a tertiary referral center in Türkiye and to examine its association with demographic and clinical risk factors.
methodsA retrospective study was conducted at SBÜ Gülhane Training and Research Hospital between January 2021 and December 2024, including 1,322 infants referred after newborn hearing screening due to either a "refer" result or the presence of risk factors despite passing automated auditory brainstem response. Relevant risk factors were analyzed.
resultsHearing loss was detected in 92 infants (7.0%), including 3.3% with unilateral and 3.7% with bilateral loss. By severity, the distribution was mild (2.8%), moderate (0.8%), moderately severe (0.3%), and profound (1.5%). While most infants with unilateral loss did not receive amplification, bilateral cases showed higher rates of hearing aid (28.6%) and cochlear implant (14.3%) use. Family history of hearing loss was the only factor significantly associated with device adoption (p<0.05).
conclusionThe prevalence of hearing loss in referred infants was higher than in population-based studies and aligned with findings in high-risk groups. Differences in device use between unilateral and bilateral cases highlight the importance of parental counseling. Strengthening follow-up and family awareness is crucial to improving early intervention outcomes, particularly in infants without a family history.
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.