Miriam Geal-Dor1, Cahtia Adelman, Haya Levi, Gary Zentner, Chen Stein-Zamir. 1. Audiology and Speech Pathology Clinic, Hadassah University Medical Center and Department of Communication Disorders, Hadassah Academic College, Jerusalem, Israel. miriam112@bezeqint.net
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Hearing screening programs in infancy should identify hearing impairment as early as possible. The two common programs utilize either objective neonatal tests (oto-acoustic emissions (OAE) or automatic auditory brainstem responses (aABR)) or behavioral screening at 7-9 months of age. Most countries employ only one of these options. The uniqueness of this study is the comparison of both hearing screening programs on the same group of children. METHODS: The study was conducted on 1545 children born between the years 1999 and 2003 who were followed up in public well baby clinics in the Jerusalem district. The children were tested with transient oto-acoustic emissions (TEOAE) before discharge from the neonatal ward, and later, at the age of 7-9 months, underwent a behavioral hearing screening test in a public well baby clinic. The results of both hearing screening programs were compared. RESULTS: The compliance rates were 99.7% for the neonatal testing and 83% for the 7-9 months behavioral testing (p=0.0001). The failure rate was 4-6% in both screening programs; failure of OAE testing was unilateral in 65% of newborns; at 7-9 months bilateral failure was more common (56%). There was an 11.2% disagreement (kappa coefficient 0.03) between the outcomes of both tests. In another group of 49 known hearing-impaired children, 27 who had undergone newborn screening were diagnosed before the age of behavioral testing. Twelve children had failed either both tests or the only test they underwent. In nine cases, the children had passed one of the hearing screening tests and had failed the other, and one child had passed both tests. CONCLUSIONS: Newborn hearing screening has the advantages of objectivity, early identification, and higher compliance. The major advantage of the later behavioral test is identification of later onset or progressive hearing impairment as well as auditory neuropathy spectrum disorder. Each screening test is testing different entities; hence they are complementary and not interchangeable or superfluous. We recommend a comprehensive two-step hearing screening plan (newborn and later behavioral) with close cooperation between the health care providers involved.
OBJECTIVE: Hearing screening programs in infancy should identify hearing impairment as early as possible. The two common programs utilize either objective neonatal tests (oto-acoustic emissions (OAE) or automatic auditory brainstem responses (aABR)) or behavioral screening at 7-9 months of age. Most countries employ only one of these options. The uniqueness of this study is the comparison of both hearing screening programs on the same group of children. METHODS: The study was conducted on 1545 children born between the years 1999 and 2003 who were followed up in public well baby clinics in the Jerusalem district. The children were tested with transient oto-acoustic emissions (TEOAE) before discharge from the neonatal ward, and later, at the age of 7-9 months, underwent a behavioral hearing screening test in a public well baby clinic. The results of both hearing screening programs were compared. RESULTS: The compliance rates were 99.7% for the neonatal testing and 83% for the 7-9 months behavioral testing (p=0.0001). The failure rate was 4-6% in both screening programs; failure of OAE testing was unilateral in 65% of newborns; at 7-9 months bilateral failure was more common (56%). There was an 11.2% disagreement (kappa coefficient 0.03) between the outcomes of both tests. In another group of 49 known hearing-impairedchildren, 27 who had undergone newborn screening were diagnosed before the age of behavioral testing. Twelve children had failed either both tests or the only test they underwent. In nine cases, the children had passed one of the hearing screening tests and had failed the other, and one child had passed both tests. CONCLUSIONS: Newborn hearing screening has the advantages of objectivity, early identification, and higher compliance. The major advantage of the later behavioral test is identification of later onset or progressive hearing impairment as well as auditory neuropathy spectrum disorder. Each screening test is testing different entities; hence they are complementary and not interchangeable or superfluous. We recommend a comprehensive two-step hearing screening plan (newborn and later behavioral) with close cooperation between the health care providers involved.
Authors: F Matin; S Haumann; W Roßberg; D Mitovska; T Lenarz; A Lesinski-Schiedat Journal: Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol Date: 2020-12-18 Impact factor: 2.503