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 accessAbstract
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
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.
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
The Biological Foundations of Language
Lenneberg, E. H. (1967) · Hospital Practice · doi:10.1080/21548331.1967.11707799 · Cited by 6,605
Maturational constraints on language learning
Newport, E. L. (1990) · Cognitive Science · doi:10.1207/s15516709cog1401_2 · Cited by 1,738
Experience and brain development
Greenough, W. T., Black, J. E., & Wallace, C. S. (1987) · Child Development · doi:10.2307/1130197 · Cited by 1,398
Recanzone, G., Schreiner, C., & Merzenich, M. (1993) · The Journal of Neuroscience · doi:10.1523/jneurosci.13-01-00087.1993 · Cited by 1,266
Cited by
Hobart, J., & Cano, S. (2009) · Health Technology Assessment · doi:10.3310/hta13120 · Cited by 621
Jones, J., Shepherd, J., Baxter, L., Gospodarevskaya, E., Hartwell, D., Harris, P., & Price, A. (2009) · Health Technology Assessment · doi:10.3310/hta13350 · Cited by 357
Elkan, Kendrick, Hewitt, Robinson, Tolley, Blair, Dewey, Williams, & Brummell (2000) · Health Technology Assessment · doi:10.3310/hta4130 · Cited by 297
Self-monitoring of blood glucose in type 2 diabetes: systematic review
Clar, C., Barnard, K., Cummins, E., Royle, P., & Waugh, N. (2010) · Health Technology Assessment · doi:10.3310/hta14120 · Cited by 274
Little, P., Turner, S., Rumsby, K., Warner, G., Moore, M., Lowes, J., Smith, H., Hawke, C., Turner, D., Leydon, G., et al. (2009) · Health Technology Assessment · doi:10.3310/hta13190 · Cited by 137
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.