Literature DB >> 11059707

Identification of neonatal hearing impairment: evaluation of transient evoked otoacoustic emission, distortion product otoacoustic emission, and auditory brain stem response test performance.

S J Norton1, M P Gorga, J E Widen, R C Folsom, Y Sininger, B Cone-Wesson, B R Vohr, K Mascher, K Fletcher.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this study was to compare the performance of transient evoked otoacoustic emissions (TEOAEs), distortion product otoacoustic emissions (DPOAEs), and auditory brain stem responses (ABRs) as tools for identification of neonatal hearing impairment.
DESIGN: A total of 4911 infants including 4478 graduates of neonatal intensive care units, 353 well babies with one or more risk factors for hearing loss (Joint Committee on Infant Hearing, 1994) and 80 well babies without risk factor who did not pass one or more neonatal test were targeted as the potential subject pool on which test performance would be assessed. During the neonatal period, they were evaluated using TEOAEs in response to an 80 dB pSPL click, DPOAE responses to two stimulus conditions (L1 = L2 = 75 dB SPL and L1 = 65 dB SPL L2 = 50 dB SPL), and ABR elicited by a 30 dB nHL click. In an effort to describe test performance, these "at-risk" infants were asked to return for behavioral audiologic assessments, using visual reinforcement audiometry (VRA) at 8 to 12 mo corrected age, regardless of neonatal test results. Sixty-four percent of these subjects returned and reliable VRA data were obtained on 95.6% of these returnees. This approach is in contrast to previous studies in which, by necessity, efforts were made to follow only those infants who "failed" the neonatal screening tests. The accuracy of the neonatal measures in predicting hearing status at 8 to 12 mo corrected age was determined. Only those infants who provided reliable, monaural VRA test results were included in the analysis. Separate analyses were performed without regard to intercurrent events (i.e., events between the neonatal and VRA tests that could cause their results to disagree), and then after accounting for the possible influence of intercurrent events such as otitis media and late-onset or progressive hearing loss.
RESULTS: Low refer rates were achieved for the stopping criteria used in the present study, especially when a protocol similar to the one recommended in the National Institutes of Health (1993) Consensus Conference Report was followed. These analyses, however, do not completely describe test performance because they did not compare neonatal screening test results with a gold standard test of hearing. Test performance, as measured by the area under a relative operating characteristic curve, were similar for all three neonatal tests when neonatal test results were compared with VRA data obtained at 8 to 12 mo corrected age. However, ABRs were more successful at determining auditory status at 1 kHz, compared with the otoacoustic emission (OAE) tests. Performance was more similar across all three tests when they were used to identify hearing loss at 2 and 4 kHz. No test performed perfectly. Using either the two- or three-frequency pure-tone average (PTA), with a fixed false alarm rate of 20%, hit rates for the neonatal tests, in general, exceeded 80% when hearing impairment was defined as behavioral thresholds > or =30 dB HL. All three tests performed similarly when a two-frequency (2 and 4 kHz) PTA was used as the gold standard; OAE test performance decreased when a three-frequency PTA (adding 1 kHz) was used as the gold standard definition. For both PTA and all three neonatal screening measures, however, hit rate increased as the magnitude of hearing loss increased.
CONCLUSIONS: Singly, all three neonatal hearing screening tests resulted in low refer rates, especially if referrals for follow-up were made only for the cases in which stopping criteria were not met in both ears. Following a protocol similar to that recommended in the National Institutes of Health (1993) Consensus Conference report resulted in refer rates that were less than 4%. TEOAEs at 80 dB pSPL, DPOAE at L1 = 65, L2 = 50 dB SPL and ABR at 30 dB nHL measured during the neonatal period, and as implemented in the current study, performed similarly at predicting behavioral hearing status at 8 to 12

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2000        PMID: 11059707     DOI: 10.1097/00003446-200010000-00013

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Ear Hear        ISSN: 0196-0202            Impact factor:   3.570


  37 in total

Review 1.  Universal neonatal hearing screening moving from evidence to practice.

Authors:  C Kennedy; D McCann
Journal:  Arch Dis Child Fetal Neonatal Ed       Date:  2004-09       Impact factor: 5.747

2.  Influence of primary-level and primary-frequency ratios on human distortion product otoacoustic emissions.

Authors:  Tiffany A Johnson; Stephen T Neely; Cassie A Garner; Michael P Gorga
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2006-01       Impact factor: 1.840

3.  Estimating the capacity for improvement in risk prediction with a marker.

Authors:  Wen Gu; Margaret Sullivan Pepe
Journal:  Biostatistics       Date:  2008-08-19       Impact factor: 5.899

4.  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

5.  Effects of background noise on recording of portable transient-evoked otoacoustic emission in newborn hearing screening.

Authors:  Husain Salina; Asma Abdullah; Siti Zamratol Mai-sarah Mukari; Mohd Tamil Azmi
Journal:  Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol       Date:  2009-08-29       Impact factor: 2.503

6.  Transient evoked otoacoustic emissions.

Authors:  Ravi Kapoor; Naresh K Panda
Journal:  Indian J Pediatr       Date:  2006-04       Impact factor: 1.967

Review 7.  Congenital hearing loss.

Authors:  Anna M H Korver; Richard J H Smith; Guy Van Camp; Mark R Schleiss; Maria A K Bitner-Glindzicz; Lawrence R Lustig; Shin-Ichi Usami; An N Boudewyns
Journal:  Nat Rev Dis Primers       Date:  2017-01-12       Impact factor: 52.329

Review 8.  Profound deafness and the acquisition of spoken language in children.

Authors:  Petros V Vlastarakos
Journal:  World J Clin Pediatr       Date:  2012-12-08

9.  An exploratory look at pediatric cochlear implantation: is earliest always best?

Authors:  Rachael Frush Holt; Mario A Svirsky
Journal:  Ear Hear       Date:  2008-08       Impact factor: 3.570

10.  Ear asymmetries in middle-ear, cochlear, and brainstem responses in human infants.

Authors:  Douglas H Keefe; Michael P Gorga; Walt Jesteadt; Lynette M Smith
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2008-03       Impact factor: 1.840

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.