OBJECTIVE: To compare the initial referral rate, the accurate identification rate of congenital hearing loss, and the cost between one step with transient evoked otoacoustic emissions (TEOAEs), two steps with TEOAE and automated auditory brainstem response (AABR), and one step with AABR in newborn hearing screening program. The aim of this study is to compare their efficacy between our three different protocols and to see which one is most cost-effective. STUDY DESIGN: From November 1998 to April 2006, 25,588 healthy newborns were screened for hearing loss in Mackay Memorial Hospital, Taipei. In the periods from November 1998 to January 2004, from February 2004 to February 2005, and from March 2005 to April 2006, the screening tools used were TEOAE alone (n = 18,260), TEOAE plus AABR (n = 3,540), and AABR (n = 3,788), respectively. RESULTS: A statistically significant decrease in referral rate was achieved in the group using AABR as screening tools when compared with TEOAE plus AABR and TEOAE alone (0.8 versus 1.6 versus 5.8%). The accurate identification rate of congenital hearing loss was 0.42% in AABR protocol, 0.25% in TEOAE and AABR protocol, and 0.45% in TEOAE protocol, which was not statistically significant. The total direct costs (including predischarge screening and postdischarge follow-up costs) per screening were US $10.04 for the program using TEOAE alone, US $8.60 for TEOAE plus AABR, and US $7.33 for AABR. The intangible cost (parental anxiety) was much higher in the earlier program due to higher referral rate. CONCLUSION: In the efficacy of the hearing screening program using the one-step TEOAE, two-step TEOAE and AABR, and one-step AABR programs, the latter significantly decreased the referral rate from 5.8, to 1.6, and to 0.8%. No significant difference was noted between their accurate identification rates of congenital hearing loss. The total costs, including expenditures and intangible cost, were much lower in the protocol with AABR due to reduction in false positives.
OBJECTIVE: To compare the initial referral rate, the accurate identification rate of congenital hearing loss, and the cost between one step with transient evoked otoacoustic emissions (TEOAEs), two steps with TEOAE and automated auditory brainstem response (AABR), and one step with AABR in newborn hearing screening program. The aim of this study is to compare their efficacy between our three different protocols and to see which one is most cost-effective. STUDY DESIGN: From November 1998 to April 2006, 25,588 healthy newborns were screened for hearing loss in Mackay Memorial Hospital, Taipei. In the periods from November 1998 to January 2004, from February 2004 to February 2005, and from March 2005 to April 2006, the screening tools used were TEOAE alone (n = 18,260), TEOAE plus AABR (n = 3,540), and AABR (n = 3,788), respectively. RESULTS: A statistically significant decrease in referral rate was achieved in the group using AABR as screening tools when compared with TEOAE plus AABR and TEOAE alone (0.8 versus 1.6 versus 5.8%). The accurate identification rate of congenital hearing loss was 0.42% in AABR protocol, 0.25% in TEOAE and AABR protocol, and 0.45% in TEOAE protocol, which was not statistically significant. The total direct costs (including predischarge screening and postdischarge follow-up costs) per screening were US $10.04 for the program using TEOAE alone, US $8.60 for TEOAE plus AABR, and US $7.33 for AABR. The intangible cost (parental anxiety) was much higher in the earlier program due to higher referral rate. CONCLUSION: In the efficacy of the hearing screening program using the one-step TEOAE, two-step TEOAE and AABR, and one-step AABR programs, the latter significantly decreased the referral rate from 5.8, to 1.6, and to 0.8%. No significant difference was noted between their accurate identification rates of congenital hearing loss. The total costs, including expenditures and intangible cost, were much lower in the protocol with AABR due to reduction in false positives.
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
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
Authors: Rajan Sharma; Yuanyuan Gu; Teresa Y C Ching; Vivienne Marnane; Bonny Parkinson Journal: Appl Health Econ Health Policy Date: 2019-06 Impact factor: 2.561
Authors: A Boudewyns; Frank Declau; Jenneke van den Ende; Anouk Hofkens; Sara Dirckx; Paul Van de Heyning Journal: Eur J Pediatr Date: 2016-05-24 Impact factor: 3.183
Authors: Pierpaolo Mincarone; Carlo Giacomo Leo; Saverio Sabina; Daniele Costantini; Francesco Cozzolino; John B Wong; Giuseppe Latini Journal: BMC Pediatr Date: 2015-07-22 Impact factor: 2.125