<b>Universal newborn hearing screening programs in Italy: survey of year 2006</b>

Bubbico, Luciano; Tognola, Gabriella; Greco, Antonio; Grandori, F.

doi:10.1080/00016480802008165

Cited by 21 publications

(20 citation statements)

References 12 publications

(10 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The aim of such programs is to identify hearing impairments present at birth, overall medium and severe (bilateral, >= 40 dB HTL between 0.5 and 4 KHz) [15-21,6,7]. …”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Universal neonatal audiological screening: experience of the University Hospital of Pisa

et al. 2011

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The early identification of pre-lingual deafness is necessary to minimize the consequences of hearing impairment on the future communication skills of a baby. According to the most recent international guidelines the deafness diagnosis must occur before the age of three months and the prosthetic-rehabilitative treatment with a traditional hearing aid should start within the first six months. When a Cochlear implant becomes necessary, the treatment should start between the age of 12 months and 18 months. The only way to diagnose the problem early is the implementation of universal neonatal audiological screening programs. Transient evoked otoacoustic emissions (TEOAE) is the most adequate test because it's accurate, economic and of simple execution. Automatic auditory brainstem response (AABR) is necessary to identify patients with auditory neuropathy but it is also important to reduce the number of false-positives.The 20-30% of infant hearing impairment is represented by progressive or late-onset hearing loss (HL) so it's also necessary to establish an audiological follow up program, especially in infants at risk.From November 2005 all neonates born in the University hospital of Pisa undergo newborn hearing screening. From 2008 the screening program follows the guidelines for the execution of the audiological screening in Tuscany which have been formulated by our group according to the 2007 JCIH Position Statement and adaptated to our regional reality by a multidisciplinary effort. From November 2005 to April 2009 8113 neonates born in the Neonatal Unit of Santa Chiara Hospital (Pisa) have undergone newborn hearing screening. 7621 neonates (93.9%) without risk factors executed only the TEOAE test. 492 (6.1%) neonates had audiological risk factors and thus underwent TEOAE and AABR. 84 patients (1,04%) failed both TEOAE and AABR tests. 78 of them underwent further investigations. 44 patients resulted falsepositives (the 0,54% of the screened newborns). 34 neonates (4,2 ‰) had a final diagnosis of hearing impairment. 8 patients (0.99 ‰) had unilateral hearing loss (HL). 26 patients (3,2 ‰) had bilateral hearing impairment.In our screening program the percentage of false-positives was quite low (0.54%) while the incidence of bilateral HL (3.2 ‰) is a little higher than that found in literature reports. In most of our patients premature birth or neonatal suffering represent the main cause of HL.

show abstract

“…The aim of such programs is to identify hearing impairments present at birth, overall medium and severe (bilateral, >= 40 dB HTL between 0.5 and 4 KHz) [15-21,6,7]. …”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Universal neonatal audiological screening: experience of the University Hospital of Pisa

et al. 2011

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…9 An overview of universal newborn hearing screening (UNHS) in 24 European countries from [2004][2005][2006] showed that in several countries UNHS programmes reached more than 95% of all neonates, but in many other countries programmes were recently introduced or were only partially functioning. 10 Other reports on national neonatal hearing screening programmes raise issues on implementation, test procedures, type of tests, coverage, detected cases of hearing loss, and costs. [11][12][13][14][15][16][17][18][19] A Health Technology Assessment review in 2008 20 re-examining the cost-effectiveness of vision screening up to age 4-5 (following previous report in 1997 21 ) found that, based on the accepted value of a Quality-adjusted life year, the cost-effectiveness of screening for amblyopia depends on the long-term utility effects of unilateral vision loss and that there was currently no sustainable evidence of utility loss that would render any form of screening likely to be cost-effective.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Inventory of current EU paediatric vision and hearing screening programmes

et al. 2015

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective: To examine the diversity in paediatric vision and hearing screening programmes in Europe. Methods: Themes for comparison of screening programmes derived from literature were used to compile three questionnaires on vision, hearing, and public health screening. Tests used, professions involved, age, and frequency of testing seem to influence sensitivity, specificity, and costs most. Questionnaires were sent to ophthalmologists, orthoptists, otolaryngologists, and audiologists involved in paediatric screening in all EU full-member, candidate, and associate states. Answers were crosschecked. Results: Thirty-nine countries participated; 35 have a vision screening programme, 33 a nation-wide neonatal hearing screening programme. Visual acuity (VA) is measured in 35 countries, in 71% of these more than once. First measurement of VA varies from three to seven years of age, but is usually before age five. At age three and four, picture charts, including Lea Hyvarinen, are used most; in children over four, Tumbling-E and Snellen. As first hearing screening test, otoacoustic emission is used most in healthy neonates, and auditory brainstem response in premature newborns. The majority of hearing testing programmes are staged; children are referred after 1-4 abnormal tests. Vision screening is performed mostly by paediatricians, ophthalmologists, or nurses. Funding is mostly by health insurance or state. Coverage was reported as >95% in half of countries, but reporting was often not first-hand. Conclusion: Largest differences were found in VA charts used (12), professions involved in vision screening (10), number of hearing screening tests before referral (1-4), and funding sources (8).

show abstract

“…Unfortunately, the ideal hearingscreening test for children has yet to be defined and local circumstances may make variations necessary depending on to medical equipment (ABR or/and EOAEs) and, presence/absence of audiological specialist [19][20][21]. This pilot study carried out in Sciacca hospital from the beginning of 2003, was set out to determine the feasibility and effectiveness of hospital-based UNHS by non-specialists for promoting early detection of congenital and early onset hearing loss in Western Sicily that still now is lacking [6,12].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The potential benefits of early detection can only be realized if an effective newborn hearing-screening programme is performed. In Italy [6], as in other developed countries in the most of birth centres is not present a specialist audiologist, therefore the neonatal nurse who understands the consequences of undetected hearing loss is an excellent position to emphasize the point. In fact it plays an essential role performing the screening, charting the results and informing the parents about the screening outcomes.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%