Newborn Hearing Screening: Costs of Establishing a Program

Lemons, James A.; Fanaroff, Avroy A.; Stewart, Edward; Bentkover, Judith D.; Murray, Gail S.; Diefendorf, Allan O.

doi:10.1038/sj.jp.7210618

Cited by 26 publications

(25 citation statements)

References 7 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…The TEOAE results for failing the first screening (10.2%) and failing the second screening (2%) are similar to those of some authors [10,11,19], but better than those of others [1,[16][17][18]35,38,40].…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 68%

“…Studies calculating and comparing the expenses involved in two-step TEOAE testing with twostep AABR testing indicate they are analogous [9,18,38,40]. It is true that disposable supply costs are practically negligible with TEOAE and approximately s7 per child with our AABR equipment (the price of earphones and electrodes) [5].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…This is logical given that ambient sound and myogenetic interference are among the most commonly implicated factors in failed screening. A change of the infant's position or activity or a change in the location of the test will frequently change the screening result from fail to pass [36,38]. When a newborn failed the test in the maternity ward, we tried to repeat it, transferring the child to the ENT Service.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…It is true that screening test time varies depending on the child's hearing, the presence of partial obstructions in the external auditory canal or the middle ear, and on test conditions. However, the average time needed to carry out automated ABR testing ranges from 8 to 15 min [2,5,9,[16][17][18]20,22,26,36,[38][39][40], and conventional TEOAE tests take from 2 to 13 min [1,2,9,10,16,17]. We calculate, without exact measurements, that each test took an average of 15 min using the specified AABR equipment and about 10 min using that of TEOAE.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Comparison of two-step transient evoked otoacoustic emissions (TEOAE) and automated auditory brainstem response (AABR) for universal newborn hearing screening programs

Benito-Orejas

Ramírez

Morais

et al. 2008

International Journal of Pediatric Otorhinolaryngology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

SummaryObjective: Both transitory auditory otoemissions (TEOAE) and automated auditory brainstem responses (AABR) are considered adequate methods for universal hearing screening. The goal of this study was to compare the results obtained with each device, applying the same screening procedure. The population studied included all well newborns and those admitted to neonatal intensive care units (NICU). The first screening was normally undertaken with well babies during the first 48 h of life, before hospital discharge. Infants referred from this first step underwent a second screening after hospital discharge, before they were a month old. Results: The results from each study group were compared and analyzed for significant differences. TEOAE screening yielded 10.2% fail results from the first screening step; AABR gave 2.6%. In the second screening step, 2% of the newborns screened with TEOAE were referred, whereas 0.32% of those screened with AABR were referred. These differences are statistically significant.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 68%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Comparison of two-step transient evoked otoacoustic emissions (TEOAE) and automated auditory brainstem response (AABR) for universal newborn hearing screening programs

Benito-Orejas

Ramírez

Morais

et al. 2008

International Journal of Pediatric Otorhinolaryngology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In other countries, three studies have been conducted on the economic analysis of these devices for screening. Although they have defined effectiveness by the number of referred cases, their conclusions are in line with those obtained in this research (20)(21)(22).…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 66%

Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Automated Auditory Brainstem Response and Otoacoustic Emission in Universal Neonatal Hearing Screening

et al. 2016

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: During the last decade, the rapid expansion of universal neonatal hearing screening (UNHS) has brought into focus questions about the most appropriate screening technology for this indication. Objectives:The main aim of this study was to examine the cost-effectiveness of automated auditory brainstem response (AABR) and otoacoustic emissions (OAE) in universal neonatal hearing screening programs. Methods: This economic study was performed in Iran. A decision tree model was applied for economic evaluation of the AABR and OAE devices used in UNHS. The main inputs of our model included the prevalence of hearing loss in Iran, device sensitivity, specificity and cost per case, as well as definite diagnosis of each newborn. Upon collection, these inputs were analyzed with TreeAge economic analysis software. Sensitivity analysis was conducted upon examining the probability of uncertainty concerning the inputs. Results: For a one-year period and a one-million population of newborns, the UNHS entails a cost of $3,310,700 and detects 4,650 newborns with hearing loss, using the AABR device. However, if the OAE device is used, the cost will be expanded to $3,414,100 and 3,850 newborns with hearing loss will be detected. Consequently, the AABR device costs $103,400 less than the OAE device, and detects 800 more cases than the OAE device. Sensitivity analysis results revealed that the prevalence rate or costs of the gold standard had no effect on displacing the dominant technology. Conclusions: In this study, it was found that the AABR is the cost-effective alternative compared to OAE. AABR dominates OAE, because it has lower expected costs and higher effectiveness.

show abstract

Neonatal hearing screening of high-risk infants using automated auditory brainstem response: a retrospective analysis of referral rates

McGurgan

Patil

2013

Ir J Med Sci

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Newborn Hearing Screening: Costs of Establishing a Program

Abstract: AABR appears to be the preferred method for universal newborn hearing screening. AABR was associated with the lowest costs, achieved the lowest referral rates at hospital discharge, and had the quickest learning curve to achieve those rates.

Cited by 26 publications

References 7 publications

Comparison of two-step transient evoked otoacoustic emissions (TEOAE) and automated auditory brainstem response (AABR) for universal newborn hearing screening programs

Comparison of two-step transient evoked otoacoustic emissions (TEOAE) and automated auditory brainstem response (AABR) for universal newborn hearing screening programs

Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Automated Auditory Brainstem Response and Otoacoustic Emission in Universal Neonatal Hearing Screening

Neonatal hearing screening of high-risk infants using automated auditory brainstem response: a retrospective analysis of referral rates

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About