Universal newborn hearing screening program in Saudi Arabia: Current insight

Alothman, Noura; Elbeltagy, Reem; Mulla, Reem

doi:10.1016/j.joto.2024.01.002

Cited by 3 publications

(1 citation statement)

References 24 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The referral rate in the current study is comparable to the approximately 0.7% reported in Saudi Arabia after two-stage screening protocol ( 15 ). Another recent study by Alothman et al reported a higher referral rate of 1.87% across all provinces of Saudi Arabia following a three-stage screening protocol ( 16 ). In Oman, the NHS program indicated a referral rate of 6.6%, surpassing the internationally recommended maximum benchmark of 4% ( 13 ).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Evaluation of newborn hearing screening program in Jordan

Obeidat,

Alothman,

Alkahtani

et al. 2024

Front. Pediatr.

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

IntroductionThe Newborn Hearing Screening (NHS) program was officially launched in Jordan in 2021. Since its inception, no studies have examined the effectiveness of the program. This study seeks to assess the effectiveness and outcomes of the NHS program in Jordan.MethodsA retrospective cross-sectional study was conducted to investigate the program coverage rate, referral rate, loss to follow-up rate and the hearing status of newborns who successfully completed the necessary diagnostic assessment. Live births in all hospitals administered by the Ministry of Health (MoH) in Jordan from July 2021 to November 2023 were included.ResultsOut of 25,825 newborns delivered, 99.4% (25,682) were screened. A referral rate of 0.7% (189) was recorded. Approximately 61.9% of those referred (n = 117) had normal hearing, while 31.7% (60 infants) were diagnosed with hearing loss. The prevalence of congenital hearing loss was 0.14%, and the mean age for identifying hearing loss was 11 months.DiscussionThe current status of the NHS program in Jordan is promising. The program has achieved most benchmarks recommended by the Joint Committee on Infant Hearing (JCIH), demonstrating encouraging outcomes. There is a need to investigate and address the factors causing delays in the identification of hearing loss in Jordan.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Evaluation of newborn hearing screening program in Jordan

Obeidat,

Alothman,

Alkahtani

et al. 2024

Front. Pediatr.

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Quality measures of two-stage newborn hearing screening: Systematic review with a Bayesian meta-analysis

Manz,

Nennstiel,

Marzi

et al. 2024

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: Newborn Screening for hearing impairment (NHS) is a crucial public health issue worldwide. Often, a two-stage screening with two different testing approaches is used. We aimed to investigate the optimal screening algorithm, based on data from the literature published in the last 30 years. A particular focus of the study was to synthesize the existing evidence on two-stage newborn hearing screening regarding the refer rate (RFR), the percentage of children that did not pass the second test or were lost after the first test. Methods: We searched MEDLINE for studies on two-stage NHS using transitory evoked otoacoustic emissions (TEOAE) or automated auditory brainstem response (AABR). All studies on newborns who received their first test as an inpatient and a second test up to one month later were eligible. Random effects meta-analysis and Bayesian modeling were performed to estimate RFR, effects of the second test phase on the RFR, and sensitivity and specificity of TEOAE and AABR, respectively. Risk of bias was assessed using QUADAS-II. The unfunded study was registered in PROSPERO (CRD42023403091). Results: Fifty-seven study protocols, including over 704,000 newborns, met the inclusion criteria. Certainty in the evidence was rated as moderate. The RFR was higher when the test method was changed than without a change of method (AABR-AABR: RFR = 1.4% (95% confidence interval (CI): 0.9, 2.2%), TEOAE-TEOAE: RFR = 2.5% (CI: 2.0, 3.1%), TEOAE-AABR: RFR = 4.9% (CI: 3.1, 7.5%), AABR-TEOAE: 5.9% (CI: 5.0, 6.9%). Across all protocols, both methods demonstrated high sensitivity (AABR: 98.9% (95% credibility interval (CrI): 96.0, 100.0%), TEOAE: 96.9% (CrI: 92.5, 99.8%)) and high specificity (AABR: 92.7% (CrI: 92.5, 92.9%), TEOAE: 91.3% (CrI: 91.2, 91.4%)). Conclusions: Strategies that did not involve changes to the screening method had lower RFR. Although both methods demonstrated high sensitivity, AABR appears to have slightly higher specificity compared to TEOAE.

show abstract

Awareness and Knowledge of Congenital Cytomegalovirus (cCMV) Among Audiologists and Speech-Language Pathologists in Saudi Arabia: A Cross Sectional Survey

Aldawood,

Alfhili

2024

JMDH

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Universal newborn hearing screening program in Saudi Arabia: Current insight

Cited by 3 publications

References 24 publications

Evaluation of newborn hearing screening program in Jordan

Evaluation of newborn hearing screening program in Jordan

Quality measures of two-stage newborn hearing screening: Systematic review with a Bayesian meta-analysis

Awareness and Knowledge of Congenital Cytomegalovirus (cCMV) Among Audiologists and Speech-Language Pathologists in Saudi Arabia: A Cross Sectional Survey

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About