Literature DB >> 10878176

The false-positive in universal newborn hearing screening.

C J Clemens1, S A Davis, A R Bailey.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: Concern has been raised about the frequency and subsequent emotional effect of a false-positive result during universal newborn hearing screening (UNHS). This study describes: 1) the results of 1 UNHS program and a potential method to significantly reduce the false-positive rate, and 2) the effect a false-positive result has on lasting maternal anxiety toward their children as well as their views toward UNHS in general.
METHODS: A retrospective analysis was conducted using data from 5010 infants screened with an automated auditory brainstem response (ABR) at the Women's Hospital of Greensboro (WHOG) from July 6, 1998 to June 30, 1999. In addition, a structured telephone survey was given to mothers of infants who had failed the initial hearing screen (stage 1) and who had completed an outpatient rescreen (stage 2).
RESULTS: Confirmed hearing loss occurred in non-neonatal intensive care unit infants at a rate of 1.8/1000. A false-positive rate of 1.9% occurred during stage 1 of UNHS (screening before newborn discharge). We attribute this relatively low rate to rescreening of 51% of those newborns who failed the initial screen before hospital discharge. Eighty percent of these rescreened infants passed, thus needing no additional follow-up. If we had rescreened all infants before discharge, the false-positive rate would have approached.5%. Results of the survey were reassuring with regard to lasting emotional effects of false-positive tests. Only 9% of mothers said they "treated their child differently" before outpatient rescreening, and only 14% reported any lasting anxiety after their child passed the outpatient repeat screen. Although none reached statistical significance, potential risk factors for lasting anxiety include more educated mothers, lack of understanding of UNHS, and a false-positive result in both stage 1 and stage 2. Over 90% of all mothers believed that UNHS was a good idea.
CONCLUSIONS: By rescreening all infants before hospital discharge, the false-positive rate of UNHS performed using automated ABR can be reduced to <1%. However, for the false-positive results that do occur, any long-lasting and detrimental emotional impact between mother and infant seems to be small and could be reduced even more with improved understanding about UNHS.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2000        PMID: 10878176     DOI: 10.1542/peds.106.1.e7

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Pediatrics        ISSN: 0031-4005            Impact factor:   7.124


  20 in total

Review 1.  Ethical and Public Health Implications of Targeted Screening for Congenital Cytomegalovirus.

Authors:  Ladawna L Gievers; Alison Volpe Holmes; Jaspreet Loyal; Ilse A Larson; Carlos R Oliveira; Erik H Waldman; Sheevaun Khaki
Journal:  Pediatrics       Date:  2020-07       Impact factor: 7.124

2.  Strategies for Educating Physicians about Newborn Hearing Screening.

Authors:  Mary Pat Moeller; Leisha Eiten; Karl White; Lenore Shisler
Journal:  J Acad Rehabil Audiol       Date:  2006-01-01

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

Authors:  I J McGurgan; N Patil
Journal:  Ir J Med Sci       Date:  2013-10-07       Impact factor: 1.568

4.  Improving newborn screening laboratory test ordering and result reporting using health information exchange.

Authors:  Stephen M Downs; Peter C van Dyck; Piero Rinaldo; Clement McDonald; R Rodrey Howell; Alan Zuckerman; Gregory Downing
Journal:  J Am Med Inform Assoc       Date:  2010 Jan-Feb       Impact factor: 4.497

Review 5.  A review of the psychosocial effects of false-positive results on parents and current communication practices in newborn screening.

Authors:  J Hewlett; S E Waisbren
Journal:  J Inherit Metab Dis       Date:  2006-08-17       Impact factor: 4.982

Review 6.  Universal newborn hearing screening: methods and results, obstacles, and benefits.

Authors:  Katarzyna E Wroblewska-Seniuk; Piotr Dabrowski; Witold Szyfter; Jan Mazela
Journal:  Pediatr Res       Date:  2016-11-18       Impact factor: 3.756

Review 7.  Universal newborn hearing screening, a revolutionary diagnosis of deafness: real benefits and limitations.

Authors:  George X Papacharalampous; Thomas P Nikolopoulos; Dimitrios I Davilis; Ioannis E Xenellis; Stavros G Korres
Journal:  Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol       Date:  2011-06-23       Impact factor: 2.503

8.  Parental experiences of the newborn hearing screening programme in Wales: a postal questionnaire survey.

Authors:  Rosemary Fox; Sally Minchom
Journal:  Health Expect       Date:  2008-12       Impact factor: 3.377

Review 9.  The generation gap: differences between children and adults pertinent to economic evaluations of health interventions.

Authors:  Ron Keren; Susmita Pati; Chris Feudtner
Journal:  Pharmacoeconomics       Date:  2004       Impact factor: 4.981

10.  Age-dependent cost-utility of pediatric cochlear implantation.

Authors:  Yevgeniy R Semenov; Susan T Yeh; Meena Seshamani; Nae-Yuh Wang; Emily A Tobey; Laurie S Eisenberg; Alexandra L Quittner; Kevin D Frick; John K Niparko
Journal:  Ear Hear       Date:  2013 Jul-Aug       Impact factor: 3.570

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.