Hearing loss assessed by universal newborn hearing screening—The new approach

Prpić, Igor; Mahulja-Stamenković, Vesna; Bilić, Iva; Haller, Herman

doi:10.1016/j.ijporl.2007.07.015

Cited by 11 publications

(4 citation statements)

References 13 publications

(12 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…From the registration, we know that at least 13 of 76 parents refused to participate in the diagnostic examination. Other European countries with a fully implemented NHS reported similar coverage rates ranging from 96.3% to 98.9% (10–12).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 84%

Ten‐year quality assurance of the nationwide hearing screening programme in Dutch neonatal intensive care units

Dommelen¹,

Straaten²,

Verkerk³

2011

Acta Paediatrica

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 84%

Ten‐year quality assurance of the nationwide hearing screening programme in Dutch neonatal intensive care units

Dommelen¹,

Straaten²,

Verkerk³

2011

Acta Paediatrica

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The rate of prevalence of hearing loss reported to the worldwide is growing [5], 1-4 of 1000 newborns are born with hearing loss, this being one of the most common congenital anomalies [6]. The current literature suggests that globally about 6 out of 1000 infants present the permanent hearing loss at birth or in the neonatal period [7].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

May Influence the Epidural Anesthesia the Newborn Hearing Screening?

2012

Med. Con.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objectives: The main purpose was to determine if the epidural anesthesia has any influence on the results of the screening of the newborns whose birth was by caesarean section on request and if the time of the testing influences the results of the screening.Materials and methods: 50 newborn babies are taking in the study, 25 born by Cesarean section under epidural anesthesia, 25 born by natural delivery; they are tested at three different times using transient otoacoustic emissions (TEOAE) and automated auditory brainstem response (AABR).Results: The screening performed in the first four hours of the birth had false positive results, compared with the testing performed after 24 hours. They obtained an index increased of suspicion-statistically significant (p < 0, 05)-in the terms of the influence of the epidural anesthesia on the automatic response of the auditory brainstem (AABR) when the test is performed at less than four hours after birth. Conclusions: The obtained results have importance for the planning of the auditory screening, especially when it wants the universal testing of the hearing to the newborn.

show abstract

“…[21] Globally, it is reported to be twice as prevalent as other neonatal conditions, screened for at birth. [2223] The current literature suggests that globally, approximately six in every 1000 infants present with permanent hearing loss at birth or within the neonatal period.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

The influence of epidural anesthesia on new-born hearing screening: A pilot study

Khoza-Shangase

Joubert

2011

J Pharm Bioall Sci

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective:The main aim was to establish if epidural anesthesia had an influence on new-born hearing screening results in newborns born via elective Cesarean section in healthy pregnancies. Specific objectives included determining screening results in a group of newborns born to mothers who had undergone epidural anesthesia during Cesarean section childbirth (experimental group); and comparing the findings with those of a group of newborns born to mothers who had undergone natural delivery without epidural anesthesia (comparison group); while establishing if the time of screening following delivery had any effect on the overall screening results.Materials and Methods:The above objectives were achieved through the use of a prospective quasi-experimental repeated measures design with a comparison group, where 40 newborns (20 in the experimental and 20 in the comparison group) were screened at three different times through transient otoacoustic emissions (TEOAEs) and automated auditory brainstem response (AABR) measures. All participants were screened while resting quietly in open bassinets in an empty new-born nursery. For both test measures, the results were recorded as either pass or refer. Data were analyzed through both descriptive and inferential statistics.Results:Findings indicated that hearing screening earlier than four hours after birth, for both the experimental and comparison groups yielded more false positive findings than testing conducted after 24 hours. An index of suspicion in relation to the influence of epidural anesthesia on Automated Auditory Brainstem Response (AABR), when conducted less than four hours after birth, was raised, as statistically significant findings (P<0.05) were obtained.Conclusions:The findings have implications for timing of screening where universal newborn hearing screening is being implemented.

show abstract

Hearing loss assessed by universal newborn hearing screening—The new approach

Cited by 11 publications

References 13 publications

Ten‐year quality assurance of the nationwide hearing screening programme in Dutch neonatal intensive care units

Ten‐year quality assurance of the nationwide hearing screening programme in Dutch neonatal intensive care units

May Influence the Epidural Anesthesia the Newborn Hearing Screening?

The influence of epidural anesthesia on new-born hearing screening: A pilot study

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About