Outcome of Newborn Hearing Screening by ABR Compared With Four Different DPOAE Pass Criteria

2000 ◽  
Vol 9 (2) ◽  
pp. 142-148 ◽  
Author(s):  
Susan E. Barker ◽  
Marci M. Lesperance ◽  
Paul R. Kileny
Keyword(s):  
Otoacoustic Emission ◽  
Hearing Screening ◽  
Risk Indicators ◽  
Newborn Hearing Screening ◽  
Distortion Product Otoacoustic Emission ◽  
Auditory Brain Stem Response ◽  
Screening Programs ◽  
Distortion Product ◽  
Auditory Brain Stem ◽  
Newborn Hearing

The purpose of this study is to compare the effectiveness and utility of distortion product otoacoustic emission (DPOAE) and auditory brain stem response (ABR) testing as screening methodologies suitable for universal application at a large birthing hospital. Five hundred sixty-nine neonates (1184 ears) without risk indicators for hearing loss underwent DPOAE and ABR screening before hospital discharge at birth. All ears (100%) passed the ABR screening. DPOAE results were categorized on the basis of the number of frequencies at which emissions were obtained as well as presence versus absence of a replicated response at each test frequency. Pass and refer rates varied widely, on the basis of whether the presence of DPOAE response at 2000 Hz or replication were required. With the most stringent criteria, only 64.44% of ears passed, whereas with the least stringent criteria 88.94% passed. Given that 100% of ears passed according to the gold standard of the ABR screening, these results indicate false-positive rates ranging from 11% to 35% by DPOAE screening. This discrepancy in pass and refer rates when various criteria are applied indicates the need for standardization and further comparison of appropriate pass criteria for newborn hearing screening programs.

scholarly journals Newborn hearing screening

2007 ◽  
Vol 135 (5-6) ◽  
pp. 264-268 ◽  
Author(s):  
Snezana Babac ◽  
Dragoslava Djeric ◽  
Zoran Ivankovic
Keyword(s):  
Hearing Loss ◽  
Sensorineural Hearing Loss ◽  
Brain Stem ◽  
Otoacoustic Emissions ◽  
Hearing Screening ◽  
Newborn Hearing Screening ◽  
Auditory Brain Stem Response ◽  
Auditory Brain Stem ◽  
Newborn Hearing ◽  
Brain Stem Response

Introduction: Prevalence of sensorineural hearing loss is 1-3 per 1,000 newborns. Transient evoked otoacoustic emission (TEOAE) and automated auditory brain stem responses (AABR) are most frequently used methods in newborn hearing screening programmes. Objective. The aim of this study was to examine hearing function in newborns with and without risk factors for hearing loss. We investigated accuracy and feasibility of two automated technologies: transient otoacoustic emissions (TEOAE) and auditory brain stem response (AABR) in early detection of hearing loss. Method. In prospective study, 907 newborns were tested on both ears with transient evoked otoacoustic emissions (TEOAE). If results were "refer", we performed automated brain stem response (AABR). Two stage screening protocols were used with two screening technologies (TEOAE, AABR). Results. Results showed screening pass of 86.3% of the newborns in the first protocol and 99.3% in the second. Six (0.7%) newborns had positive screening results for hearing loss. They were referred for additional audolologic tests (otoacoustic emissions, tympanometry, and auditory brain stem response) to confirm or exclude hearing loss. Audiologic examination was performed up to the third month of life. We confirmed unilateral sensorineural hearing loss in two babies. Average test time per ear was 21.3?19.4 s for TEOAE and 135.3?67.9 s for AABR. Conclusion TEOAE, AABR tests are confidential, noninvasive and feasible methods and can help to detect hearing impairment.

The Impact of Pass/Refer Criteria in the Use of Otoacoustic Emission Technology for Newborn Hearing Screening

2021 ◽  
pp. 1-7
Author(s):  
Amisha Kanji ◽  
Alida Naudé
Keyword(s):  
Repeated Measures ◽  
Otoacoustic Emissions ◽  
Screening Program ◽  
Otoacoustic Emission ◽  
Hearing Screening ◽  
Newborn Hearing Screening ◽  
Distortion Product ◽  
Repeated Measures Design ◽  
Newborn Hearing ◽  
The Impact

Purpose The current study aimed to compare the specificity of transient evoked otoacoustic emissions (TEOAEs) and distortion product otoacoustic emissions (DPOAEs) in isolation and in combination, with varying pass/refer criteria for DPOAE technology. Method A longitudinal, repeated-measures design was employed. The current study sample comprised 91 of the initial 325 participants who returned for the repeat screening and diagnostic audiological assessment within a risk-based newborn hearing screening program. Results TEOAE screening had the highest specificity in comparison to DPOAE screening at the initial and repeat screening, irrespective of differences in DPOAE pass/refer criteria. DPOAE screening had a slightly higher specificity, with a three out of six rather than the four out of six frequency pass criteria. Conclusions Pass/refer criteria alone do not influence referral rates and specificity. Instead, consideration of other factors in combination with these criteria is important. More research is required in terms of the sensitivity and specificity of OAE screening technology using repeated-measures and diagnostic audiological evaluation as the gold standard.

scholarly journals Contralateral Ear Occlusion for Improving the Reliability of Otoacoustic Emission Screening Tests

2014 ◽  
Vol 2014 ◽  
pp. 1-8 ◽  
Author(s):  
Emily Papsin ◽  
Adrienne L. Harrison ◽  
Mattia Carraro ◽  
Robert V. Harrison
Keyword(s):  
Ambient Noise ◽  
Otoacoustic Emission ◽  
Acoustic Stimulation ◽  
Hearing Screening ◽  
Screening Tests ◽  
Newborn Hearing Screening ◽  
Noise Levels ◽  
Distortion Product ◽  
Newborn Hearing ◽  
Contralateral Ear

Newborn hearing screening is an established healthcare standard in many countries and testing is feasible using otoacoustic emission (OAE) recording. It is well documented that OAEs can be suppressed by acoustic stimulation of the ear contralateral to the test ear. In clinical otoacoustic emission testing carried out in a sound attenuating booth, ambient noise levels are low such that the efferent system is not activated. However in newborn hearing screening, OAEs are often recorded in hospital or clinic environments, where ambient noise levels can be 60–70 dB SPL. Thus, results in the test ear can be influenced by ambient noise stimulating the opposite ear. Surprisingly, in hearing screening protocols there are no recommendations for avoiding contralateral suppression, that is, protecting the opposite ear from noise by blocking the ear canal. In the present study we have compared transient evoked and distortion product OAEs measured with and without contralateral ear plugging, in environmental settings with ambient noise levels <25 dB SPL, 45 dB SPL, and 55 dB SPL. We found out that without contralateral ear occlusion, ambient noise levels above 55 dB SPL can significantly attenuate OAE signals. We strongly suggest contralateral ear occlusion in OAE based hearing screening in noisy environments.

Evaluation of the effectiveness of newborn hearing screening program in Zahedan: A cross-sectional study

2021 ◽  
Vol 15 (6) ◽  
pp. 2067-2071
Author(s):  
Gholam-Ali Dashti Khavidaki ◽  
Reza Gharibi
Keyword(s):  
Hearing Loss ◽  
Early Diagnosis ◽  
Screening Program ◽  
Hearing Screening ◽  
Newborn Hearing Screening ◽  
Cross Sectional ◽  
Screening Programs ◽  
Second Stage ◽  
Maternity Hospitals ◽  
Newborn Hearing

Introduction: Hearing loss is one of the most common congenital disorders. The prevalence of this disorder in different communities has been reported between 3.5 to 9 percent, which can have adverse effects on language learning, communication, and education of children. Also, early diagnosis of this disorder in newborns is not possible without the use of hearing screening. Therefore, the aim of this study was to evaluate the effectiveness of newborn hearing screening programs in Zahedan. Method: In this cross-sectional observational study, all babies born in the maternity hospitals of Zahedan city (maternity hospitals of Nabi Akram, Imam Ali, and Social Security hospitals) in 2020, were examined. In order to conduct the study, TEOAE was initially performed for all neonates. Then, based on the results obtained in the ODA test and in case of unsatisfactory response, cases were referred for re-evaluation. Infants who were rejected again in the second stage were immediately subjected to the AABR test and if they failed in this test, they were also subjected to a diagnostic ABR test. Results: Based on our results, 7700 infants were first evaluated with the OAE test. Of these, 580 (8%) had no OAE response. Out of 580 infants rejected in the first stage, 76 infants were also rejected in the second stage; Among them, 8 infants were re-diagnosed with hearing impairments. Finally, out of 3 infants who were diagnosed with hearing loss, 1 (33%) had conductive hearing loss and 2 (67%) had sensorineural hearing loss. Conclusion: Based on the findings of the present study, the implementation of a comprehensive neonatal hearing screening program is necessary for the timely and early diagnosis and treatment of hearing loss. Also, screening can improve the health of children and their personal, social, and educational development in the future. Keywords: Hearing screening, hearing loss, newborns, OAE, AABR

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document