Dataset Information

Risk factors for hearing loss in children: a systematic literature review and meta-analysis protocol.

ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND:Hearing loss in newborns and children is a public health concern, due to high prevalence and negative effects on their development. Early detection and intervention of childhood hearing loss may mitigate these negative effects. Population-based newborn hearing screening programs have been established worldwide to identify children at risk for congenital hearing loss and to follow children at risk for late onset or progressive hearing loss. This article presents the protocol for a systematic review that aims to review the risk factors associated with permanent hearing loss in children, including congenital, early, or late onset. Risk factors associated with progressive hearing loss will be investigated as a secondary aim. METHODS:Scientific literature from the following databases will be investigated: MEDLINE, Ovid MEDLINE(R) Daily and Ovid MEDLINE(R), Embase, and CINAHL. The primary outcome is a permanent bilateral or unilateral hearing loss with congenital onset or onset during childhood (birth to 18?years). The secondary outcome is progressive hearing loss. Studies must report data on risk factors associated with permanent hearing loss; risk factors may be present at birth or later and result in immediate or delayed hearing loss. Randomized controlled trials, quasi-experimental studies, nonrandomized comparative and non-comparative studies, and case series will be included. The risk of bias will be assessed using the Qualitative Assessment Tool for Quantitative Studies (McMaster University). If aggregation of data is possible for a subsection of studies, we will pool data using meta-analysis techniques. If aggregation of data is not possible, a qualitative synthesis will be presented. We will assess the quality and strength of the overall body of evidence using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE). The systematic review follows the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) recommendations. DISCUSSION:The resulting information will inform the update of a provincial audiological surveillance protocol for the Ontario Infant Hearing Program and will be applicable to early hearing detection and intervention (EHDI) programs worldwide. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION:We have registered the protocol in the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO), registration number CRD42018104121.

SUBMITTER: Vos B

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6637473 | biostudies-literature | 2019 Jul

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Risk factors for hearing loss in children: a systematic literature review and meta-analysis protocol.

Vos Bénédicte B Noll Dorie D Pigeon Marie M Bagatto Marlene M Fitzpatrick Elizabeth M EM

Systematic reviews 20190717 1

<h4>Background</h4>Hearing loss in newborns and children is a public health concern, due to high prevalence and negative effects on their development. Early detection and intervention of childhood hearing loss may mitigate these negative effects. Population-based newborn hearing screening programs have been established worldwide to identify children at risk for congenital hearing loss and to follow children at risk for late onset or progressive hearing loss. This article presents the protocol fo ...[more]

PMID: 31315672

Similar Datasets

Project description:Permanent childhood hearing loss affects 1 to 3 per 1000 children and frequently disrupts typical spoken language acquisition. Early identification of hearing loss through universal newborn hearing screening and the use of new hearing technologies including cochlear implants make spoken language an option for most children. However, there is no consensus on what constitutes optimal interventions for children when spoken language is the desired outcome. Intervention and educational approaches ranging from oral language only to oral language combined with various forms of sign language have evolved. Parents are therefore faced with important decisions in the first months of their child's life.This article presents the protocol for a systematic review of the effects of using sign language in combination with oral language intervention on spoken language acquisition. Studies addressing early intervention will be selected in which therapy involving oral language intervention and any form of sign language or sign support is used. Comparison groups will include children in early oral language intervention programs without sign support. The primary outcomes of interest to be examined include all measures of auditory, vocabulary, language, speech production, and speech intelligibility skills. We will include randomized controlled trials, controlled clinical trials, and other quasi-experimental designs that include comparator groups as well as prospective and retrospective cohort studies. Case-control, cross-sectional, case series, and case studies will be excluded. Several electronic databases will be searched (for example, MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, PsycINFO) as well as grey literature and key websites. We anticipate that a narrative synthesis of the evidence will be required. We will carry out meta-analysis for outcomes if clinical similarity, quantity and quality permit quantitative pooling of data. We will conduct subgroup analyses if possible according to severity/type of hearing disorder, age of identification, and type of hearing technology.This review will provide evidence on the effectiveness of using sign language in combination with oral language therapies for developing spoken language in children with hearing loss who are identified at a young age. The information from this review can provide guidance to parents and intervention specialists, inform policy decisions and provide directions for future research.CRD42013005426.

Project description:The increased risk of hearing loss with macrolides remains controversial. We aimed to systematically review and meta-analyze data on the clinical risk of hearing loss, tinnitus, and ototoxicity following macrolide use. A systematic search was conducted across PubMed, MEDLINE, Cochrane, and Embase databases from database inception to May 2023. Medical Subject Heading (MeSH) terms and text keywords were utilized, without any language restrictions. In addition to the electronic databases, two authors manually and independently searched for relevant studies in the US and European clinical trial registries and Google Scholar. Studies that involved (1) patients who had hearing loss, tinnitus, or ototoxicity after macrolide use, (2) intervention of use of macrolides such as azithromycin, clarithromycin, erythromycin, fidaxomicin, roxithromycin, spiramycin, and/or telithromycin, (3) comparisons with specified placebos or other antibiotics, (4) outcomes measured as odds ratio (OR), relative risk (RR), hazard ratio (HR), and mean difference for ototoxicity symptoms using randomized control trial (RCT)s and observational studies (case-control, cross-section, and cohort studies) were included. Data extraction was performed independently by two extractors, and a crosscheck was performed to identify any errors. ORs along with their corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were estimated using random-effects models. The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses reporting guidelines for RCTs and Meta-Analysis of Observational Studies in Epidemiology guidelines for observational studies were followed. We assessed the hearing loss risk after macrolide use versus controls (placebos and other antibiotics). Based on data from 13 studies including 1,142,021 patients (n = 267,546 for macrolide and n = 875,089 for controls), the overall pooled OR was 1.25 (95% CI 1.07-1.47). In subgroup analysis by study design, the ORs were 1.37 (95% CI 1.08-1.73) for RCTs and 1.33 (95% CI 1.24-1.43) for case-control studies, indicating that RCT and case-control study designs showed a statistically significant higher risk of hearing loss. The group with underlying diseases such as multiple infectious etiologies (OR, 1.16 [95% CI 0.96-1.41]) had a statistically significant lower risk than the group without (OR, 1.53 [95% CI 1.38-1.70] P = .013). The findings from this systematic review and meta-analysis suggest that macrolide antibiotics increase the risk of hearing loss and that healthcare professionals should carefully consider this factor while prescribing macrolides.

Dataset Information

Risk factors for hearing loss in children: a systematic literature review and meta-analysis protocol.

Publications

Risk factors for hearing loss in children: a systematic literature review and meta-analysis protocol.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets