NCBI Bookshelf. A service of the National Library of Medicine, National Institutes of Health.

Nelson HD, Bougatsos C, Nygren P. Universal Newborn Hearing Screening: Systematic Review to Update the 2001 U.S. Preventive Services Task Force Recommendation [Internet]. Rockville (MD): Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (US); 2008 Jul. (Evidence Syntheses, No. 62.)

Cover of Universal Newborn Hearing Screening: Systematic Review to Update the 2001 U.S. Preventive Services Task Force Recommendation

Universal Newborn Hearing Screening: Systematic Review to Update the 2001 U.S. Preventive Services Task Force Recommendation [Internet].

Show details

2Methods

Literature Search and Strategy

Literature searches were conducted to systematically identify articles addressing the 3 key questions focusing on evidence that was not included in the 2001 USPSTF evidence review (Appendix B1 - Search Strategies). Databases included the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects (through the 4th Quarter 2007), and Ovid MEDLINE (2000–November 2007 for key questions 1 and 2; 1996–November 2007 for key question 3). Additional articles were obtained from reference lists of related reviews, studies, editorials, reports, websites, and by consulting experts.

Inclusion and Exclusion Criteria

Investigators reviewed abstracts and selected full-text articles based on inclusion and exclusion criteria specific to each key question (Appendix B2 - Inclusion and Exclusion Criteria). Eligible studies addressed key questions and were English-language, conducted in the U.S. or comparable location, and, for screening studies, included infants screened before age 6 months. Key questions 1 and 2 were addressed by controlled trials and observational studies. Key question 3 on adverse effects was addressed by descriptive as well as comparative studies. Results of surveys were included if response rates were >40%. Appendix B3 catalogues a list of studies excluded from the review.

Critical Appraisal

The quality of studies was rated using design-specific criteria developed by the USPSTF (Appendix B4 - USPSTF Quality Rating Criteria).32 Each study's overall rating considers internal validity and applicability. Descriptive studies without quality criteria were not rated, but are summarized in the text.

Size of Literature Reviewed

A total of 1316 unique citations were identified by the literature searches and from reference lists, etc. (Appendix B5 - Yields from Searches, Abstract Review, and Article Review). Of these, two studies met inclusion criteria for KQ 1, seven met criteria for KQ 2, and eleven met criteria for KQ3.

Appendix B5. Yields from Searches, Abstract Review, and Article Review.

Figure

Appendix B5. Yields from Searches, Abstract Review, and Article Review.

Data Synthesis

Data from the full text of the original articles and systematic reviews were abstracted to evidence tables (Appendix C). The data included study, year, setting, patient population, inclusion/exclusion criteria, risk status, methods, and results. An outcomes table estimating the number needed to screen under various assumptions was determined using estimates from the most relevant studies.

External Review Process

The USPSTF liaisons advise the Oregon Evidence-based Practice Center in formulating and reporting this systematic review update. An additional set of outside experts have provided feedback on a draft version of the evidence synthesis (Appendix D).

PubReader format: click here to try

Views

  • PubReader
  • Print View
  • Cite this Page

Recent Activity

Your browsing activity is empty.

Activity recording is turned off.

Turn recording back on

See more...