| Title |
Newborn hearing screening programme in Belgium: a consensus recommendation on risk factors
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
BMC Pediatrics, October 2015
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s12887-015-0479-4 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Bénédicte Vos, Christelle Senterre, Raphaël Lagasse, SurdiScreen Group, Alain Levêque |
| Abstract |
Understanding the risk factors for hearing loss is essential for designing the Belgian newborn hearing screening programme. Accordingly, they needed to be updated in accordance with current scientific knowledge. This study aimed to update the recommendations for the clinical management and follow-up of newborns with neonatal risk factors of hearing loss for the newborn screening programme in Belgium. A literature review was performed, and the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) system assessment method was used to determine the level of evidence quality and strength of the recommendation for each risk factor. The state of scientific knowledge, levels of evidence quality, and graded recommendations were subsequently assessed using a three-round Delphi consensus process (two online questionnaires and one face-to-face meeting). Congenital infections (i.e., cytomegalovirus, toxoplasmosis, and syphilis), a family history of hearing loss, consanguinity in (grand)parents, malformation syndromes, and foetal alcohol syndrome presented a 'high' level of evidence quality as neonatal risk factors for hearing loss. Because of the sensitivity of auditory function to bilirubin toxicity, hyperbilirubinaemia was assessed at a 'moderate' level of evidence quality. In contrast, a very low birth weight, low Apgar score, and hospitalisation in the neonatal intensive care unit ranged from 'very low' to 'low' levels, and ototoxic drugs were evidenced as 'very low'. Possible explanations for these 'very low' and 'low' levels include the improved management of these health conditions or treatments, and methodological weaknesses such as confounding effects, which make it difficult to conclude on individual risk factors. In the recommendation statements, the experts emphasised avoiding unidentified neonatal hearing loss and opted to include risk factors for hearing loss even in cases with weak evidence. The panel also highlighted the cumulative effect of risk factors for hearing loss. We revised the recommendations for the clinical management and follow-up of newborns exhibiting neonatal risk factors for hearing loss on the basis of the aforementioned evidence-based approach and clinical experience from experts. The next step is the implementation of these findings in the Belgian screening programme. |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 185 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Italy | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 184 | 99% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 30 | 16% |
| Student > Bachelor | 20 | 11% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 19 | 10% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 16 | 9% |
| Other | 12 | 6% |
| Other | 40 | 22% |
| Unknown | 48 | 26% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 75 | 41% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 23 | 12% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 5 | 3% |
| Psychology | 4 | 2% |
| Linguistics | 3 | 2% |
| Other | 20 | 11% |
| Unknown | 55 | 30% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 19 October 2015.
All research outputs
#20,294,248
of 22,830,751 outputs
Outputs from BMC Pediatrics
#2,596
of 3,006 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#234,870
of 280,050 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Pediatrics
#62
of 72 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,830,751 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,006 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.6. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 280,050 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 72 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.