Literature DB >> 36259421

Effectiveness of universal newborn hearing screening: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

Karen Edmond1, Shelly Chadha1, Cynthia Hunnicutt2, Natalie Strobel3, Vinaya Manchaiah4,5,6,7, Christine Yoshinga-Itano2.   

Abstract

Background: Permanent bilateral hearing loss (PBHL) is a serious condition in newborns, with a prevalence of at least one per 1000 live births. However, there has been no recent systematic review and meta-analysis of the effectiveness of universal newborn hearing screening programs (UNHS).
Methods: We registered our study protocol on PROSPERO CRD42020175451. Primary outcomes were any identification of PBHL (ie, PBHL diagnosed at any time), age of identification of PBHL, and neurodevelopment. Two reviewers searched standard databases to March 2022 and extracted data. We used fixed and random effects meta-analysis to pool data and graded the certainty of evidence using standard methods.
Results: The search retrieved 2834 records. We identified five studies reporting on the effects of UNHS vs no UNHS in 1 023 610 newborns. The relative risk of being identified with PBHL before nine months in infants with UNHS compared to infants without UNHS was 3.28 (95% confidence interval (95% CI) = 1.84, 5.85, one study, 1 023 497 newborns, low certainty evidence). The mean difference in the age of identification of PBHL in infants with UNHS compared to infants without UNHS was 13.2 months earlier (95% CI = -26.3, -0.01, two studies, 197 newborns, very low certainty evidence). The relative risk of infants eventually being identified with PBHL in infants with UNHS compared to infants without UNHS was 1.01 (95% CI = 0.89, 1.14, three studies, 1 023 497 newborns, low certainty evidence). At the latest follow-up at 3-8 years, the standardised mean difference (SMD) in receptive language development between infants with UNHS compared to infants without UNHS was 0.60 z scores (95% CI = 0.07, 1.13, one study, 101 children, low certainty evidence) and the mean difference in developmental quotients was 7.72 (95% CI = -0.03, 15.47, three studies, 334 children, very low certainty evidence). The SMD in expressive language development was 0.39 z scores (95% CI = -0.20, 0.97, one study, 87 children, low certainty evidence) and the mean difference in developmental quotients was 10.10 scores (95% CI = 1.47, 18.73, 3 studies, 334 children, very low certainty evidence). Conclusions: UNHS programs result in earlier identification of PBHL and may improve neurodevelopment. UNHS should be implemented across high-, middle-, and low-income countries. Registration: PROSPERO (CRD42020175451).
Copyright © 2022 by the Journal of Global Health. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2022        PMID: 36259421      PMCID: PMC9579831          DOI: 10.7189/jogh.12.12006

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Glob Health        ISSN: 2047-2978            Impact factor:   7.664


  35 in total

1.  Universal newborn hearing screening and early identification of deafness: parents' responses to knowing early and their expectations of child communication development.

Authors:  Alys Young; Helen Tattersall
Journal:  J Deaf Stud Deaf Educ       Date:  2007-02-02

2.  Revisiting Wilson and Jungner in the genomic age: a review of screening criteria over the past 40 years.

Authors:  Anne Andermann; Ingeborg Blancquaert; Sylvie Beauchamp; Véronique Déry
Journal:  Bull World Health Organ       Date:  2008-04       Impact factor: 9.408

3.  Developmental outcomes of children with hearing loss born in Colorado hospitals with and without universal newborn hearing screening programs.

Authors:  C Yoshinaga-Itano; D Coulter; V Thomson
Journal:  Semin Neonatol       Date:  2001-12

4.  Population Outcomes of Three Approaches to Detection of Congenital Hearing Loss.

Authors:  Melissa Wake; Teresa Y C Ching; Karen Wirth; Zeffie Poulakis; Fiona K Mensah; Lisa Gold; Alison King; Hannah E Bryson; Sheena Reilly; Field Rickards
Journal:  Pediatrics       Date:  2015-12-24       Impact factor: 7.124

5.  Preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta-analysis protocols (PRISMA-P) 2015: elaboration and explanation.

Authors:  Larissa Shamseer; David Moher; Mike Clarke; Davina Ghersi; Alessandro Liberati; Mark Petticrew; Paul Shekelle; Lesley A Stewart
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  2015-01-02

6.  ROBINS-I: a tool for assessing risk of bias in non-randomised studies of interventions.

Authors:  Jonathan Ac Sterne; Miguel A Hernán; Barnaby C Reeves; Jelena Savović; Nancy D Berkman; Meera Viswanathan; David Henry; Douglas G Altman; Mohammed T Ansari; Isabelle Boutron; James R Carpenter; An-Wen Chan; Rachel Churchill; Jonathan J Deeks; Asbjørn Hróbjartsson; Jamie Kirkham; Peter Jüni; Yoon K Loke; Theresa D Pigott; Craig R Ramsay; Deborah Regidor; Hannah R Rothstein; Lakhbir Sandhu; Pasqualina L Santaguida; Holger J Schünemann; Beverly Shea; Ian Shrier; Peter Tugwell; Lucy Turner; Jeffrey C Valentine; Hugh Waddington; Elizabeth Waters; George A Wells; Penny F Whiting; Julian Pt Higgins
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  2016-10-12

7.  Prevalence of permanent childhood hearing loss detected at the universal newborn hearing screen: Systematic review and meta-analysis.

Authors:  Emma Butcher; Carol Dezateux; Mario Cortina-Borja; Rachel L Knowles
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2019-07-11       Impact factor: 3.240

8.  The world report on hearing, 2021.

Authors:  Shelly Chadha; Kaloyan Kamenov; Alarcos Cieza
Journal:  Bull World Health Organ       Date:  2021-04-01       Impact factor: 9.408

Review 9.  Outcomes of Universal Newborn Screening Programs: Systematic Review.

Authors:  Christine Yoshinaga-Itano; Vinaya Manchaiah; Cynthia Hunnicutt
Journal:  J Clin Med       Date:  2021-06-24       Impact factor: 4.241

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.