Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 407

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 4 of the 4 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

A critical review of the role of neonatal hearing screening in the detection of congenital hearing impairment.

Open access
Davis, Bamford, Wilson, Ramkalawan, Forshaw, Wright·1997·Health Technology Assessment

Abstract

Glossary and list of abbreviationsTechnical terms and abbreviations are used throughout this report.The meaning is usually clear from the context but a glossary is provided for the non-specialist reader.In some cases usage differs in the literature but the term has a constant meaning throughout this review.Permanent hearing impairment Average hearing levels measured at ≥ 40 dB HL on all occasions. Congenital hearing impairmentHearing impairment considered by examination of the case history to be present and detectable using appropriate tests at or very soon after birth.This was the default classification when there was no indication in the case notes of the presence of an acquired impairment or evidence of a progressive or a late-onset element to the impairment. Acquired hearing impairmentHearing impairment acquired post-natally or of lateonset or progressive nature which, on the basis of case history was not considered to be present and detectable using appropriate tests at or very soon after birth. SpecificityThe ability of a programme to screen out individuals who are not cases (e.g. in a screening programme, the percentage of unaffected individuals who pass the screen).contd Executive summary Scope A summary of the major effects of permanent childhood hearing impairment (PCHI) are presented in this chapter, together with an outline of the historical arguments for early identification and screening.A brief history of childhood hearing screening in the UK is followed by an outline of current concerns about identification and service provision in the light of new developments and, hence, the need for this critical review.The main review questions, an outline of the review procedures, and the structure of the report are summarised. ScopeA public health perspective on PCHI is presented in this chapter.Epidemiological data relating to the UK are presented and reviewed: the prevalence of PCHI as a function of severity, onset and demographics; the natural history of PCHI, that is, its onset and development; the major risk factors for PCHI; the differential aetiology of PCHI, and the current service indicators or proxy outcome measures, for example, the age of referral, confirmation and fitting of hearing-aids for PCHI.Severity of hearing impairment (dB HL) England Wales Scotland N Ireland ≥ 40 837 (767-912) 47 (43-51) 82 (75-89) 32 (30-35) ≥ 50 692 (629-761) 39 (35-43) 68 (62-75) 27 (24-29) ≥ 60 509 (453-566) 29 (25-32) 50 (44-56) 20 (17-22) ≥ 70 371 (327-421) 21 (18-24) 36 (32-41) 14 (13-16) ≥ 80 296 (258-346) 17 (15-19) 29 (25-34) 11 (10-13) ≥ 90 220 (182-264) 12 (10-15) 22 (18-26) 9 (7-10) ≥ 95 195 (151-245) 11 (8-14) 19 (15-24) 8 (6-9) ≥ 100 151 (120-182) 8 (7-10) 15 (12-18) 6 (5-7) ≥ 110 69 (50-94) 4 (3-5) 7 (5-9) 3 (2-4) ≥ 120 25 (19-44) 1 (1-2) 2 (2-4) 0 (0-2)TABLE 6 The estimated number of children (with 95% CIs) with congenital PCHI in the four countries of the UK per annual birth cohort estimated from the birth cohort of 1994, using the prevalence data from Table 2 Severity of hearing impairment (dB HL) England Wales Scotland N Ireland ≥ 40 704 (635-774) 40 (36-44) 69 (62-76) 27 (25-30) ≥ 50 566 (509-629) 32 (29-35) 56 (50-62) 22 (20-24) ≥ 60 403 (352-453) 23 (20-25) 39 (35-44) 16 (14-17) ≥ 70 296 (258-346) 17 (15-19) 29 (25-34) 11 (10-13) ≥ 80 233 (195-277) 13 (11-16) 23 (19-27) 9 (8-11) ≥ 90 176 (145-208) 10 (8-12) 17 (14-20) 7 (6-8) ≥ 95 151 (120-182) 8 (7-10) 15 (12-18) 6 (5-7) ≥ 100 113 (88-138) 6 (5-8) 11 (9-14) 4 (3-5) ≥ 110 57 (38-75) 3 (2-4) 6 (4-7) 2 (1-3) ≥ 120 19 (13-38) 1 (0-2) 2 (1-4) 0 (0-1)• Neonatal screening • HVDT • SES.An indication of the organisation, purchasing, implementation and effectiveness of these screens is obtained that informs the context in which choices between future options may be made.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.3310/hta1100

Cites

4 of 4 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 4 references

Cited by

See all 407

Metadata

Authors
Davis, Bamford, Wilson, Ramkalawan, Forshaw, & Wright
Venue
Health Technology Assessment
Published
1997
Volume
1
Issue
10
Pages
i-iv, 1
ISSN
  • 1366-5278 (ISSN-L)
  • 2046-4924
OpenAlex
W2470470507
Cited by
407
References
4
FWCI
11.62
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
hybrid

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: A critical review of the role of neonatal hearing screening in the detection of congenital hearing impairment. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.3310/hta1100
The paper
Davis, Bamford, Wilson, Ramkalawan, Forshaw, & Wright. (1997). A critical review of the role of neonatal hearing screening in the detection of congenital hearing impairment. Health Technology Assessment. https://doi.org/10.3310/hta1100

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.