Outcome of a Newborn Hearing Screening Program in a Tertiary Hospital in Malaysia: The First Five Years

Yenidoğan İşitme Taraması Sonuçları Rize;Türkiye

“…In the study, we found that 72.67% of the newborns passed first screening step with A-TEOAE. This result is quite similar with outcomes detected in the studies conducted by Ahmad et al (22) and Kucur et al (23); with rates of 74.5% and 76.9%, respectively. Although NHSS recommends the screening test for the infants within next week following discharge from the hospital, many infants may participate in the program late and false positive results may be obtained due to increase in activity and sensitivity to the sound over time.…”

Follow-up in newborn hearing screening – A systematic review

“…newborns [24,26,31,34,38]. A systematic training of these professionals forms an important component of follow-up in UNHS programs [24].…”

“…The other factors reported to contribute to optimal follow-up rates included increased public and parental awareness and education [26,35,38]; a focus on risk factors, behavioral signs of hearing loss and normal language development [30]; regular and periodic awareness campaigns regarding the UNHS program [38]; and use of ABR following TEOAE testing to reduce overall expenses [23].…”

Comment on: Outcome of a newborn hearing screening program in a tertiary hospital in Malaysia: The first five years Ann Saudi Med 2011; 31: 24-8

“…Apart from the high default rate in the Ahmad et al's study1 (33.9% and 40.7% in the second and third screening, respectively), the following considerations must not be overlooked. The techniques used within the newborn hearing screening (NHS) in the Ahmad et al's study,1 notably transient evoked otoacoustic emissions (TEOAE) and automated auditory brainstem response (AABR) have limitations in HI detection. The protocols used in the NHS might have various specificities and false positive rates and, hence, alter the prevalence of HI.…”

“…To the Editor : Despite the fact that the low prevalence of hearing impairment (HI) (0.09%) reported by Ahmad et al1 is apparently pleasing, I presume that the actual prevalence is underestimated. Apart from the high default rate in the Ahmad et al's study1 (33.9% and 40.7% in the second and third screening, respectively), the following considerations must not be overlooked.…”