Reliability of hearing screening in high-risk neonates: Comparative study of otoacoustic emission, automated and conventional auditory brainstem response

Performance of two hearing screening protocols in NICU in Shanghai

“…Another factor which may explain this difference was that some babies had debris or cerumen in the external ear canal which could influence the detection of a DPOAE and consequently produce a high rate of false positive results. This hypothesis is further supported by the study of Suppiej et al [21], who found a much higher rate of false positives with TEOAE screening than with ABR technique in highrisk neonates.…”

The frequency of auditory neuropathy detected by universal newborn hearing screening program

“…On the other hand, Iwasaki suggested using a two-stage measurement of a-ABR alone for newborn hearing screening, as it has a lower referral rate and a lower false-positive rate [27]. Another study reported that the conventional ABR provided more reliable results for hearing screening of high-risk neonates, when compared with OAE and a-ABR [28]. Thus, further investigations in newborn hearing screening may change the future audiological research directions.…”

Depressed brainstem auditory electrophysiology in preterm infants after perinatal hypoxia–ischaemia

“…In addition to being widely used for newborn hearing testing and screening, the BAER has also been used to study and diagnose central auditory impairment and brain damage in clinical problems that affect the brainstem auditory pathway [8][9][10][11][12][13]. Recent studies further show that the BAER is a reliable test to detect and diagnose auditory neuropathy in high risk neonates because of high sensitivity and specificity [14]. Previous BAER studies in infants after perinatal HI show that the BAER provides important information regarding the pathophysiology of hypoxic-ischemic brain, specifically brainstem, damage following the insult [9,10,[15][16][17].…”