Risk Factors Associated With Hearing Impairment in Infants and Children: A Systematic Review
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
The purpose of the present systematic review was to synthesize evidence on associated risk factors of hearing loss (HL) in children. Evidence-based research articles on HL published between January 2013 and December 2022 using PubMed, Cochrane, and Scopus databases were searched. The study included children between zero and three years of age who have permanent bilateral/unilateral HL (BHL/UHL) by employing case-control studies, randomized controlled trials, nonrandomized studies, prospective or retrospective cohort studies, and studies with or without comparison groups. The Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) and the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) critical appraisal checklist for longitudinal and cross-sectional studies were used to rate the quality of the chosen studies. The studies that would be considered were reviewed by two independent authors, and a third author was contacted if there was a dispute. A preliminary literature search uncovered 505 articles from the electronic search and 41 studies by hand searching. Duplicate records were eliminated, leaving 432 records. The abstract and title were read, and 340 studies were eliminated. There were 92 articles in total that qualified for full-text screening. Among these, 75 articles were disregarded since they lacked information or failed to assess the risk factors for HL. The qualitative synthesis, therefore, included 17 articles. Most often, cross-sectional study designs were used in the studies that were reviewed, which were then followed by longitudinal studies. Three of the studies that were reviewed used a prospective cohort design. The quality of all the included studies was rated to be good. The current review revealed that the primary statistically significant risk factors for HL included ventilator support; craniofacial anomalies; low birth weight (LBW); forceps delivery; loop diuretics; meningitis; asphyxia; intensive care; consanguinity; sepsis; Apgar scores between 0 and 4 at one minute; toxoplasmosis, other agents, rubella, cytomegalovirus, and herpes (TORCH) infections; and hyperbilirubinemia.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,001 | 0,007 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,003 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».