Use of Transitory Evoked Otoacoustic Emission and Distortion Product Otoacoustic Emission in a Newborn Hearing Screening Program in West Crete

Skull Base ◽  
2009 ◽  
Vol 19 (S 02) ◽  
Author(s):  
M.G. Tzanakakis ◽  
T.S. Chimona ◽  
E. Proimos ◽  
A. Kaprana ◽  
E. Apazidou ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Screening Program ◽  
Otoacoustic Emission ◽  
Hearing Screening ◽  
Newborn Hearing Screening ◽  
Distortion Product Otoacoustic Emission ◽  
Distortion Product ◽  
Newborn Hearing

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.

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 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

scholarly journals Hearing evaluation of infants suspected of having hearing loss with a newborn hearing screening program

2005 ◽  
Vol 48 (2) ◽  
pp. 135-141 ◽  
Author(s):  
Shoichiro Fukuda ◽  
Naomi Toida ◽  
Kunihiro Fukushima ◽  
Yuko Kataoka ◽  
Kazunori Nishizaki
Keyword(s):  
Hearing Loss ◽  
Screening Program ◽  
Hearing Screening ◽  
Newborn Hearing Screening ◽  
Newborn Hearing ◽  
Hearing Evaluation

Objective Hearing Screening Measures: An Exploration of a Suitable Combination for Risk-Based Newborn Hearing Screening

2018 ◽  
Vol 29 (06) ◽  
pp. 495-502 ◽  
Author(s):  
Amisha Kanji ◽  
Katijah Khoza-Shangase
Keyword(s):  
Otoacoustic Emissions ◽  
Hearing Screening ◽  
Newborn Hearing Screening ◽  
Paired Data ◽  
Distortion Product ◽  
Repeated Measures Design ◽  
Automated Auditory Brainstem Response ◽  
Newborn Hearing ◽  
Brainstem Response ◽  
Screening Measures

AbstractThe ideal hearing screening measure is yet to be defined, with various newborn hearing screening protocols currently being recommended for different contexts. Such diverse recommendations call for further exploration and definition of feasible and context-specific protocols.The aim of the study was to establish which combinations of audiological screening measures provide both true-positive (TP) and true-negative (TN) results for risk-based hearing screening, at and across time.A longitudinal, repeated-measures design was employed.Three-hundred and twenty-five participants comprised the initial study sample. These participants comprised newborns and infants who were discharged from the neonatal intensive care unit and high care wards to “step down” wards at two public sector hospitals within an academic hospital complex.Transient evoked otoacoustic emissions (TEOAEs), distortion product otoacoustic emissions (DPOAEs), and automated auditory brainstem response (AABR) were conducted at the initial and repeat hearing screening. Diagnostic audiological assessments were also conducted. Results from combinations of audiological screening measures at the initial and repeat hearing screening were analyzed in relation to the final diagnostic outcome (n = 91). Participants were classified as presenting with an overall “refer” if the outcome for any one test was “refer.” The overall screening outcomes for different test combinations were compared using McNemar’s test for paired data. Proportions across different test combinations were compared by the z-test for proportions.Because of the absence of participants with hearing loss in the current study sample, analysis could only be conducted in relation to TN findings (specificity) and not TP findings (sensitivity). The percentage of TN findings was highest at the repeat hearing screening using any test or combination of tests when compared with findings from the initial hearing screening. TEOAE combined with AABR (TEOAE/AABR) (p < 0.0001), DPOAE combined with AABR (DPOAE/AABR) (p < 0.0001), and the combination of all three screening measures (p < 0.0001) yielded the highest percentage specificity at the repeat hearing screening when compared with the initial hearing screening.The best specificity was noted at the repeat hearing screening. Within a resource stricken context, where availability of all screening measures options may not be feasible, current study findings suggest the use of a two-stage AABR protocol or TEOAE/AABR protocol.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document