Literature DB >> 22310071

ABR-based newborn hearing screening with MB11 BERAphone® using an optimized chirp for acoustical stimulation.

Mario Cebulla1, Wafaa Shehata-Dieler.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: At our center, the Maico MB11 BERAphone(®) device is used for newborn hearing screening based on Auditory Brainstem Responses (ABR). In 2006, an optimized chirp stimulus was implemented in the device to increase the reliability and quality of the screening method. In 2002, an automated response detection algorithm had been implemented. This study analyzes the screening results using the MB11 BERAphone(®) device with the implemented chirp stimulus and automated response detection method.
METHODS: The data presented were collected in the well-baby nursery as part of the newborn hearing screening program following a two stage screening protocol. To focus the study on the typical routine screening, data from at-risk babies were not included. Overall, data from 6866 babies (3604 males and 3262 females) screened from March 2006 to April 2011 were analyzed in this study.
RESULTS: Out of the 6866 babies screened, 6607 passed bilaterally prior to hospital discharge (defined as 1st stage in this hearing screening program). Therefore, the pre-discharge pass rate of the hearing screening with the MB11 BERAphone(®) device was 96.2%. The resulting referral rate was 3.8%. The median test time per ear (excluding time for preparation and data reporting) was 28s with a range of 15-112s (5-95th percentile). The number of infants referred for 2nd stage, post-discharge re-screening was 259. Of this group, 71 passed bilaterally and 188 failed the re-screening in one or both ears. Therefore, including both the pre-discharge and post-discharge screening results, the bilateral pass rate was 97.3% and 2.7% were referred for diagnostic evaluation. Diagnostic testing was performed on all of the 188 infants who were referred. Results showed that 47 of these babies had hearing loss. This equates to a positive predictive value for a refer result of 25%. The observed prevalence of hearing impairment in our population was 0.684%. Diagnostic results for 141 of the referred newborns proved that they had normal hearing. That is, 141 out of 6866 newborns had a false-positive result with the MB11 BERAphone(®) screening. Therefore, the device had a specificity of 97.9%. During the time period of this study, no baby who passed the hearing screening was later found to have hearing impairment, suggesting a sensitivity of 100%. However, due to the limited number of newborns and the short time period after screening for the more recently screened babies, a reliable estimate of the sensitivity cannot be yet made from our program statistics. The theoretical sensitivity of the MB 11 device is 99.9%.
CONCLUSIONS: The Maico MB11 BERAphone(®) is a reliable device for auditory brainstem response newborn hearing screening and it provides results within a very short time. Due to the implemented method for automatic detection of ABR, the use of the device does not require an experienced examiner, allowing it to be used by trained technicians in locations outside the department of audiology such as the well-baby nursery.
Copyright © 2012 Elsevier Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2012        PMID: 22310071     DOI: 10.1016/j.ijporl.2012.01.012

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Int J Pediatr Otorhinolaryngol        ISSN: 0165-5876            Impact factor:   1.675


  8 in total

1.  [Cochlear implants in children and adolescents].

Authors:  R Mlynski; S Plontke
Journal:  HNO       Date:  2013-05       Impact factor: 1.284

2.  [Duration of automated auditory brainstem response test for the initial hearing screening and influencing factors for the duration in neonates].

Authors:  Na Tian; Xiu-Li Ju; Bo Xu; Nan Zheng; Min Zhao
Journal:  Zhongguo Dang Dai Er Ke Za Zhi       Date:  2020-10

3.  Challenges of Implementing Universal Newborn Hearing Screening at a Tertiary Care Centre from India.

Authors:  Shuchita Gupta; Sandhya Sah; Tapas Som; Manju Saksena; Chander Prakash Yadav; M Jeeva Sankar; Alok Thakar; Ramesh Agarwal; Ashok K Deorari; Vinod K Paul
Journal:  Indian J Pediatr       Date:  2015-02-06       Impact factor: 1.967

Review 4.  [Preoperative auditory evaluation and postoperative follow-up in cochlear implantees : The role of objective measures].

Authors:  W Shehata-Dieler; W Großmann
Journal:  HNO       Date:  2017-04       Impact factor: 1.284

Review 5.  Evaluating reporting and process quality of publications on UNHS: a systematic review of programmes.

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

6.  Frequency-Following Response with Speech Stimulus: Comparison between Two Methods of Stimulation.

Authors:  Taissane Rodrigues Sanguebuche; Luize Caroline Lima da Silva; Bruna Pias Peixe; Débora Durigon da Silva; Michele Vargas Garcia
Journal:  Int Arch Otorhinolaryngol       Date:  2019-10-22

7.  Analysis of barriers and facilitators to early hearing detection and intervention in KwaZulu-Natal, South Africa.

Authors:  Naedene Naidoo; Nasim B Khan
Journal:  S Afr J Commun Disord       Date:  2022-01-31

8.  Feasibility of newborn hearing screening in a public hospital setting in South Africa: A pilot study.

Authors:  Amisha Kanji; Katijah Khoza-Shangase
Journal:  S Afr J Commun Disord       Date:  2016-07-21
  8 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.