Universal screening of newborns to detect hearing impairment—Is it necessary?

Rai, Narendra; Thakur, Neha

doi:10.1016/j.ijporl.2013.04.006

Cited by 43 publications

(42 citation statements)

References 10 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…In our sample, 16% of the newborns had at least one risk indicator hearing loss, while other authors showed a 56% and 12% of occurrence [10,12]. These discrepancies occur mainly due to the difference in profile and the care type at each screening place.…”

Section: Discussioncontrasting

confidence: 69%

“…Other authors observed a higher frequency of ototoxic medication use, family history of hearing loss, low Apgar score, hyperbilirubinemia and NICU stay [9][10][11]. Therefore, the frequent heterogeneity of risk indicators in several studies in a population to be screened justifies the importance of this identification in each hearing health program.In our sample, 16% of the newborns had at least one risk indicator hearing loss, while other authors showed a 56% and 12% of occurrence [10,12]. These discrepancies occur mainly due to the difference in profile and the care type at each screening place.…”

contrasting

confidence: 69%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Neonatal Hearing Screening: The Importance of the Study of Risk Indicators for Hearing Loss

Silva

Ribeiro

Montovani

2017

JOENTR

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective: to analyze the frequency of risk indicators for hearing loss and its influence on the increase number of refer cases. Methodology:The study was carried out in a public hospital with a sample of 796 infants who participated in the neonatal hearing screening program by transient evoked otoacoustic emission (TEOAE).Results: 132 (16%) newborn had some risk indicators for hearing loss. NICU stay, low Apgar score, mechanical ventilation, lower birth weight less than 1500g and use of ototoxic drugs were the most frequenty risk indicators. A total of 51 (6%) newborns refer in the TEOAE test in at least one ear, and among them, 16 (31%) had a risk indicator for hearing loss. There was a statistically significant relationship between the refer rates in TEOAE with the following risk indicators: craniofacial malformation, genetic syndrome and birth weight less than 1500g. Conclusion:The NICU stay, low Apgar score, mechanical ventilation, birth weight less than 1500g and use of ototoxic drugs were the risk indicators most frequenty in this sample and the main risk indicator associated with refer in the TEOAE teste were craniofacial malformations, genetic syndromes and birth weight less than 1500g. Keywords: Risk indicators; Newborn; Hearing loss IntroductionThe prevalence of bilateral congenital hearing loss is 1 to 3/1000 live births, and in neonates with risk indicators for hearing, especially those coming from the Neonatal Intensive Care Unit (NICU), this prevalence increases 20 to 50/1000 live births [1,2].Hearing is an important sense for the development of speech and language, therefore the earlier the hearing loss is detected, the greater is the chances of promoting the development of oral language close to that of normal hearing individuals [3,5].Neonatal hearing screening allows identification of those who present a probable deafness before hospital discharge and the knowledge of the population characteristics to be screened supports to guide the cases.When the risk indicators for hearing loss is present it is necessary that the neonate be monitored audiologically, sequentially, in the first years of life, because the hearing loss can occur late and consequently affect the maturation of the auditory system, which has an unfavorable effect on the language acquisition process [6,7]. Therefore, it should be emphasized that the assessment of risk indicators for hearing is done in the maternity which will allow the elaboration of auditory attention protocols, providing the creation of actions to prevent and promote hearing health [8,9].The objective of this study was to analyze the frequency of risk indicators for hearing loss and its influence on the increase number of refer cases. MethodologyIt was a cross-sectional retrospective clinical study, conducted from January 2014 to December 2014, in a tertiary referral center. The Ethical Committee of the hospital approved the study (protocol 3395/09). Information on the pre, peri and postnatal history of the patients was collected through medical records,...

show abstract

Section: Discussioncontrasting

confidence: 69%

contrasting

confidence: 69%

Neonatal Hearing Screening: The Importance of the Study of Risk Indicators for Hearing Loss

Silva

Ribeiro

Montovani

2017

JOENTR

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The term "permanent congenital and early-onset hearing loss", or simply "hearing loss", is used more broadly to capture all degrees of hearing loss based on hearing threshold in the better ear averaged over frequencies 0.5, 1, 2, and 4 kHz, classified as: mild (20)(21)(22)(23)(24)(25)(26)(27)(28)(29)(30)(31)(32)(33)(34), moderate (35)(36)(37)(38)(39)(40)(41)(42)(43)(44)(45)(46)(47)(48)(49), moderately severe (50-64 dBHL), severe (65)(66)(67)(68)(69)(70)(71)(72)(73)(74)(75)(76)(77)(78)(79), and profound (80)(81)(82)(83)…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Screening for neonatal deafness in resource-poor countries: challenges and solutions

Olusanya¹

2015

RRN

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Newborn or neonatal hearing screening (NHS) is offered routinely in high-income countries as an essential and mandatory intervention for the early detection of infants with permanent congenital or early-onset hearing loss. However, NHS is rarely offered presently in the vast majority of low-and middle-income countries, which account for over 80% of the incidence and burden of permanent congenital or early-onset hearing loss worldwide. This review provides an overview of the current status of NHS programs in the most developmentally disadvantaged low-and middle-income countries with a per capita income of approximately US$6,000 or less against the backdrop of relevant recommendations for effective NHS programs. It highlights the key obstacles to the delivery and uptake of NHS services based on a review of available literature from the eligible countries. It proposes strategies for addressing these challenges and examines the crucial role of pediatricians and primary care physicians in providing leadership for the requisite multidisciplinary efforts to develop and promote effective NHS services in low-and middle-income countries.

show abstract

“…If on the one hand, OAEs testing is considered of easy evaluation, fast applicability, and low financial cost, on the other hand, ABR testing is less affected by noise and transient middle ear diseases, which decrease considerably the false-positive rates associated with this method while allowing detection of auditory neuropathy (6,7,8,9,10) . Therefore, ABR testing is recommended when the newborn has risk indicators for hearing loss and in cases in which the OAEs screening fails (11,12,13) . The simple occurrence of risk indicators for hearing loss increases the number of abnormalities in both tests (14) .…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Influência dos indicadores de risco nas diferentes etapas da Triagem Auditiva Neonatal

Silva

Lopez

Montovani

2016

Audiol., Commun. Res.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose: To determine risk indicators for hearing loss affecting different evaluation steps of a universal newborn hearing screening program. Methods: Longitudinal, retrospective study of newborn hearing screening in a tertiary public hospital, including 832 newborns born between January and December 2012. Transient evoked otoacoustic emissions were measured at the first hearing evaluation in all newborns and retested in cases of "failure". When a "failure" result persisted, auditory brainstem responses (ABR) was performed. All newborns with risk indicator for hearing loss were evaluated with ABR screening regardless of the outcome of the otoacoustic emissions test. Results: The presence of at least one risk indicator for hearing loss, associated or not with craniofacial malformations, genetic syndromes and birth weight below 1500 g significantly increased the chances of "failure" in the otoacoustic emissions test. Meningitis and craniofacial malformations significantly increased the odds of an abnormal ABR. Two newborns with normal otoacoustic emissions were diagnosed with auditory neuropathy. Conclusion: Craniofacial malformation was an indicator strongly associated with a diagnosis of deafness, regardless of the hearing screening being performed by otoacoustic emissions or ABR at different steps of a universal newborn hearing screening program. This finding justifies continuous and systematic monitoring of the screening service seeking quality improvement of the newborn health hearing program.

show abstract

Universal screening of newborns to detect hearing impairment—Is it necessary?

Cited by 43 publications

References 10 publications

Neonatal Hearing Screening: The Importance of the Study of Risk Indicators for Hearing Loss

Neonatal Hearing Screening: The Importance of the Study of Risk Indicators for Hearing Loss

Screening for neonatal deafness in resource-poor countries: challenges and solutions

Influência dos indicadores de risco nas diferentes etapas da Triagem Auditiva Neonatal

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About