Is Universal Newborn Hearing Screening More Efficient With Auditory Evoked Potentials Compared to Otoacoustic Emissions?

被引:0
作者
Granell, Jose [1 ]
Gavilanes, Javier [1 ]
Herrero, Javier [1 ]
Sanchez-Jara, Juan L. [1 ]
Velasco, Maria J. [1 ]
Martin, Gonzalo [1 ]
机构
[1] Complejo Asistencial Avila, Serv Otorrinolaringol, Avila, Spain
来源
ACTA OTORRINOLARINGOLOGICA ESPANOLA | 2008年 / 59卷 / 04期
关键词
Neonatal screening; Hearing loss; Otoacoustic emissions; Evoked potentials auditory;
D O I
暂无
中图分类号
R76 [耳鼻咽喉科学];
学科分类号
100213 ;
摘要
Introduction and objectives: Cost-effectivity of universal newborn hearing screening programmes is under constant review. In this context, the aim of the present study is to evaluate the performance of brainstem response audiometry (BERA) compared to otoacoustic emissions (OAE) as screening tools. Methods: Observational and retrospective study on a universal screening programme started in 1998. We perform a comparative analysis between two groups of newborns evaluated in consecutive periods of time. We analyze outcome measures of the programme as a measure of effectivity, and dedicated resources to weight the costs. Results: We compare a group of 862 newborns from year 2003, screened with transient evoked OAE with a clinical device, with a group of 2300 newborns from years 2005 and 2006, screened with automated BERA. We find a statistically significant difference in the percentage of pass in the first step, favoring BERA (99.7 % vs 91.8 %; P<. 0005). The median of exploration time with BERA was 276 seconds. Costs evaluation points to a progressively decreasing difference between both tools. Conclusions: There are data indicating that BERA could be more cost-effective as initial screening tool. This advantage should be added to the already known more comprehensive evaluation of the auditory pathway, which could lead to the recommendation of its preferential use in auditory screening programmes.
引用
收藏
页码:170 / 175
页数:6
相关论文
共 23 条
[1]  
[Anonymous], 1993, NIH Consens Statement, V11, P1
[2]  
[Anonymous], 1998, EUROPEAN CONSENSUS D
[3]  
Davis A, 1997, HLTH TECHNOL ASSESME, V1
[4]  
Dort JC, 2000, J OTOLARYNGOL, V29, P206
[5]  
DOWNS MP, 1967, ARCHIV OTOLARYNGOL, V85, P15
[6]   Newborn hearing screening by otoacoustic emissions and automated auditory brainstem response [J].
Doyle, KJ ;
Burggraaff, B ;
Fujikawa, S ;
Kim, J .
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF PEDIATRIC OTORHINOLARYNGOLOGY, 1997, 41 (02) :111-119
[7]  
Erenberg A, 1999, PEDIATRICS, V103, P527
[8]   Identification of neonatal hearing impairment: Recruitment and follow-up [J].
Folsom, RC ;
Widen, JE ;
Vohr, BR ;
Cone-Wesson, B ;
Gorga, MP ;
Sininger, YS ;
Norton, SJ .
EAR AND HEARING, 2000, 21 (05) :462-470
[9]   Comparison of two methods of TEOAE recording in newborn hearing screening [J].
Grandori, F ;
Sergi, P ;
Pastorino, G ;
Uloziene, I ;
Calori, G ;
Ravazzani, P ;
Tognola, G ;
Parazzini, M .
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF AUDIOLOGY, 2002, 41 (05) :267-270
[10]   Identification of neonatal hearing impairment: Experimental protocol and database management [J].
Harrison, WA ;
Dunnell, JJ ;
Mascher, K ;
Fletcher, K ;
Vohr, BR ;
Gorga, MP ;
Widen, JE ;
Cone-Wesson, B ;
Folsom, RC ;
Sininger, YS ;
Norton, SJ .
EAR AND HEARING, 2000, 21 (05) :357-372