Skip to main content

Table 5 Quality ratings for each study reporting on loss to follow-up rate (LTFU) from screening step 1, grouped by the programme determinant studied

From: Protocol and programme factors associated with referral and loss to follow-up from newborn hearing screening: a systematic review

Programme determinant studied Author/s (year) [citation] Quality rating (/7)
Passing criteria De Ceulaer et al. (1999), De Ceulaer et al. (2001) [46, 47] 3
Korres et al. (2003) [48] 5
Korres et al. (2005) [49] 4
Rescreening within step 1 Korres et al. (2005) [49] 4
Infant status Korres et al. (2005) [49] 4
Infant age / Inpatient vs. outpatient Kolski et al. (2007) [66] 3
Scheepers et al. (2014) [68] 4
Uilenburg et al. (2009) [69] 4
Screening professional and experience Cunningham et al. (2018) [80] 5
de Kock et al. (2016) [70] 6
Thomson and Yoshinaga-Itano (2018) [81] 5
Screener training Cunningham et al. (2018) [80] 5
Audiologist involvement Cunningham et al. (2018) [80] 5
Thomson and Yoshinaga-Itano (2018) [81] 5
Hospital size and setting for step 1 Mehl and Thomson (2002) [76] 5
Scheepers et al. (2014) [68] 4
Thomson and Yoshinaga-Itano (2018) [81] 5
Programme organisation Barker et al. (2013) [78] 6
Park et al. (2020) [79] 4
Step 2 scheduling and fees Cunningham et al. (2018) [80] 5
Thomson and Yoshinaga-Itano (2018) [81] 5
Compliance with guidelines Cunningham et al. (2018) [80] 5
Step 1 referral rate Thomson and Yoshinaga-Itano (2018) [81] 5
Step 2 location Barker et al. (2013) [78] 6
Cunningham et al. (2018) [80] 5
Hunter et al. (2016) [12] 5
Thomson and Yoshinaga-Itano (2018) [81] 5
Uilenburg et al. (2009) [69] 4