Amisha Kanji1, Katijah Khoza-Shangase2, Nomfundo Moroe2. 1. University of the Witwatersrand, South Africa. Electronic address: Amisha.Kanji@wits.ac.za. 2. University of the Witwatersrand, South Africa.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To conduct a review of the most current research in objective measures used within newborn hearing screening protocols with the aim of exploring the actual protocols in terms of the types of measures used and their frequency of use within a protocol, as well as their outcomes in terms of sensitivity, specificity, false positives, and false negatives in different countries worldwide. METHODS: A systematic literature review was conducted according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis. Electronic databases such as PubMed, Google Scholar and Science Direct were used for the literature search. A total of 422 articles were identified, of which only 15 formed part of the current study. The 15 articles that met the study's criteria were reviewed. Pertinent data and findings from the review were tabulated and qualitatively analysed under the following headings: country; objective screening and/or diagnostic measures; details of screening protocol; results (including false positive and negative findings, sensitivity and/or specificity), conclusion and/or recommendations. These tabulated findings were then discussed with conclusions and recommendations offered. RESULTS: Findings reported in this paper are based on a qualitative rather than a quantitative analysis of the reviewed data. Generally, findings in this review revealed firstly, that there is a lack of uniformity in protocols adopted within newborn hearing screening. Secondly, many of the screening protocols reviewed consist of two or more tiers or stages, with transient evoked otoacoustic emissions (TEOAEs) and automated auditory brainstem response (AABR) being most commonly used. Thirdly, DPOAEs appear to be less commonly used when compared to TEOAEs. Lastly, a question around routine inclusion of AABR as part of the NHS protocol remains inconclusively answered. CONCLUSIONS: There is sufficient evidence to suggest that the inclusion of AABR within a NHS programme is effective in achieving better hearing screening outcomes. The use of AABR in combination with OAEs within a test-battery approach or cross-check principle to screening is appropriate, but the inclusion of AABR to facilitate appropriate referral for diagnostic assessment needs to be systematically studied.
OBJECTIVE: To conduct a review of the most current research in objective measures used within newborn hearing screening protocols with the aim of exploring the actual protocols in terms of the types of measures used and their frequency of use within a protocol, as well as their outcomes in terms of sensitivity, specificity, false positives, and false negatives in different countries worldwide. METHODS: A systematic literature review was conducted according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis. Electronic databases such as PubMed, Google Scholar and Science Direct were used for the literature search. A total of 422 articles were identified, of which only 15 formed part of the current study. The 15 articles that met the study's criteria were reviewed. Pertinent data and findings from the review were tabulated and qualitatively analysed under the following headings: country; objective screening and/or diagnostic measures; details of screening protocol; results (including false positive and negative findings, sensitivity and/or specificity), conclusion and/or recommendations. These tabulated findings were then discussed with conclusions and recommendations offered. RESULTS: Findings reported in this paper are based on a qualitative rather than a quantitative analysis of the reviewed data. Generally, findings in this review revealed firstly, that there is a lack of uniformity in protocols adopted within newborn hearing screening. Secondly, many of the screening protocols reviewed consist of two or more tiers or stages, with transient evoked otoacoustic emissions (TEOAEs) and automated auditory brainstem response (AABR) being most commonly used. Thirdly, DPOAEs appear to be less commonly used when compared to TEOAEs. Lastly, a question around routine inclusion of AABR as part of the NHS protocol remains inconclusively answered. CONCLUSIONS: There is sufficient evidence to suggest that the inclusion of AABR within a NHS programme is effective in achieving better hearing screening outcomes. The use of AABR in combination with OAEs within a test-battery approach or cross-check principle to screening is appropriate, but the inclusion of AABR to facilitate appropriate referral for diagnostic assessment needs to be systematically studied.
Authors: Anita Gáborján; Gábor Katona; Miklós Szabó; Béla Muzsik; Marianna Küstel; Mihály Horváth; László Tamás Journal: Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol Date: 2022-06-29 Impact factor: 3.236
Authors: Débora Gusmão Melo; Maria Teresa Vieira Sanseverino; Thanyse de Oliveira Schmalfuss; Mariela Larrandaburu Journal: Front Public Health Date: 2021-11-02