P W Y Tsui1, B McPherson, E C M Wong, I H-Y Ng. 1. Centre for Communication Disorders and Division of Speech and Hearing Sciences, Faculty of Education, University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong, China.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Universal infant hearing screening using otoacoustic emission and auditory brain-stem response audiometry is widely administered to attain the goals of early identification of, and intervention for hearing impairment. Concerns regarding screening specificity have, however, been raised. False positives may result from vernix occlusion in the ear canal or transient middle ear effusion, and can result in substantial costs to health care systems. The current study investigates the effects of age and time interval between tests on hearing assessment results. SETTING & PARTICIPANTS: Three hundred and seventeen positive screens from a 2-stage distortion product otoacoustic emission (DPOAE) screening programme in Hong Kong, who subsequently received diagnostic auditory brainstem response (ABR) assessment and monitoring, were investigated. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Differences in diagnostic ABR results were compared among infants of different ages at tests, and with different time lapses after DPOAE screening. The proportion of those having persistent hearing impairment, conductive loss and impairment of moderate degree or above, were also compared. RESULTS: A significantly higher rate of normal ABR thresholds (60%versus 24%) was noted in infants assessed after age 50 days, and in infants diagnostically assessed with a time lapse of over 20 days post-DPOAE screening (65%versus 42%). CONCLUSIONS: Delaying diagnostic ABR assessment may reveal a higher percentage of normal thresholds, and hence probably higher specificity. Time delay may allow for spontaneous resolution of transient outer and middle ear conditions. However, the goals of early identification and intervention, as well as possible parental anxiety with delayed assessment, should also be considered when reviewing infant hearing screening schedules.
OBJECTIVES: Universal infant hearing screening using otoacoustic emission and auditory brain-stem response audiometry is widely administered to attain the goals of early identification of, and intervention for hearing impairment. Concerns regarding screening specificity have, however, been raised. False positives may result from vernix occlusion in the ear canal or transient middle ear effusion, and can result in substantial costs to health care systems. The current study investigates the effects of age and time interval between tests on hearing assessment results. SETTING & PARTICIPANTS: Three hundred and seventeen positive screens from a 2-stage distortion product otoacoustic emission (DPOAE) screening programme in Hong Kong, who subsequently received diagnostic auditory brainstem response (ABR) assessment and monitoring, were investigated. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Differences in diagnostic ABR results were compared among infants of different ages at tests, and with different time lapses after DPOAE screening. The proportion of those having persistent hearing impairment, conductive loss and impairment of moderate degree or above, were also compared. RESULTS: A significantly higher rate of normal ABR thresholds (60%versus 24%) was noted in infants assessed after age 50 days, and in infants diagnostically assessed with a time lapse of over 20 days post-DPOAE screening (65%versus 42%). CONCLUSIONS: Delaying diagnostic ABR assessment may reveal a higher percentage of normal thresholds, and hence probably higher specificity. Time delay may allow for spontaneous resolution of transient outer and middle ear conditions. However, the goals of early identification and intervention, as well as possible parental anxiety with delayed assessment, should also be considered when reviewing infant hearing screening schedules.
Authors: Pamela Dalton; Julie A Mennella; Christopher Maute; Sara M Castor; Aleida Silva-Garcia; Jerry Slotkin; Christopher R Grindle; William Parkes; Edmund A Pribitkin; James S Reilly Journal: Laryngoscope Date: 2011-08-16 Impact factor: 3.325
Authors: Pamela Dalton; Julie A Mennella; Beverly J Cowart; Christopher Maute; Edmund A Pribitkin; James S Reilly Journal: Ann N Y Acad Sci Date: 2009-07 Impact factor: 5.691