Comparison of Two-Step Transient Evoked Otoacoustic Emissions and One-Step Automated Auditory Brainstem Response for Universal Newborn Hearing Screening Programs in Remote Areas of China

Overview

Journal Front Pediatr

Specialty Pediatrics

Date 2021 May 31

PMID 34055691

Citations 3

Authors

Haibin Sheng

Qian Zhou

Qixuan Wang

Yun Yu

Lihua Liu

Meie Liang

Xueyan Zhou

Hao Wu

Xiangrong Tang

Zhiwu Huang

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

To compare the hearing screening results of two-step transient evoked otoacoustic emissions (TEOAE) and one-step automatic auditory brainstem response (AABR) in non-risk newborns, and to explore a more suitable hearing screening protocol for infants discharged within 48 h after birth in remote areas of China. To analyze the age effect on pass rate for hearing screening, 2005 newborns were divided into three groups according to screening time after birth: <24, 24-48, and 48-72 h. All subjects received TEOAE + AABR test as first hearing screen, and those who failed in any test were rescreened with TEOAE + AABR at 6 weeks after birth. The first screening results of AABR and TEOAE were compared among the three groups. The results of two-step TEOAE screening and one-step AABR screening were compared for newborns who were discharged within 48 h. The time spent on screening was recorded for TEOAE and AABR. The pass rate of TEOAE and AABR increased significantly with the increase of first screening time ( < 0.05), and the false positive rate decreased significantly with the increase of first screening time ( < 0.05). The failure rate of first screening of AABR within 48 h was 7.31%, which was significantly lower than that of TEOAE (9.93%) ( < 0.05). The average time spent on AABR was 12.51 ± 6.36 min, which was significantly higher than that of TEOAE (4.05 ± 1.56 min, < 0.05). The failure rate of TEOAE two-step screening was 1.59%, which was significantly lower than one-step AABR. Compared with TEOAE, AABR screening within 48 h after birth can reduce the failure rate and false positive rate of first screening. However, compared with TEOAE two-step screening, one-step AABR screening has higher referral rate for audiological diagnosis. In remote areas of China, especially in hospitals with high delivery rate, one-step AABR screening is not feasible, and two-step TEOAE screening protocol is still applicable to UNHS screening as more and more infants discharged within 48 h after birth.

Citing Articles

A Comparative Analysis of Otoacoustic Emission and Automated Auditory Brainstem Response for Newborn Hearing Screening.

Kv V, Chhina A Indian J Pediatr. 2024; 91(11):1209.

PMID: 38730120 DOI: 10.1007/s12098-024-05156-4.

Neonatal Hearing Rescreening in a Second-Level Hospital: Problems and Solutions.

Gomez-Delgado M, Sequi-Sabater J, Marco-Sabater A, Lora-Martin A, Aparisi-Climent V, Sequi-Canet J Audiol Res. 2023; 13(4):655-669.

PMID: 37622934 PMC: 10451824. DOI: 10.3390/audiolres13040058.

Concurrent Newborn Hearing and Genetic Screening in a Multi-Ethnic Population in South China.

Tang X, Liu L, Liang S, Liang M, Liao T, Luo S Front Pediatr. 2021; 9:734300.

PMID: 34917556 PMC: 8669824. DOI: 10.3389/fped.2021.734300.

References

van Dyk M, Swanepoel D, Hall 3rd J . Outcomes with OAE and AABR screening in the first 48 h--Implications for newborn hearing screening in developing countries. Int J Pediatr Otorhinolaryngol. 2015; 79(7):1034-40. DOI: 10.1016/j.ijporl.2015.04.021. View

Lachowska M, Surowiec P, Morawski K, Pierchala K, Niemczyk K . Second stage of Universal Neonatal Hearing Screening - a way for diagnosis and beginning of proper treatment for infants with hearing loss. Adv Med Sci. 2014; 59(1):90-4. DOI: 10.1016/j.advms.2014.02.002. View

Mehl A, Thomson V . The Colorado newborn hearing screening project, 1992-1999: on the threshold of effective population-based universal newborn hearing screening. Pediatrics. 2002; 109(1):E7. DOI: 10.1542/peds.109.1.e7. View

Kemp D . Stimulated acoustic emissions from within the human auditory system. J Acoust Soc Am. 1978; 64(5):1386-91. DOI: 10.1121/1.382104. View

Benito-Orejas J, Ramirez B, Morais D, Almaraz A, Fernandez-Calvo J . Comparison of two-step transient evoked otoacoustic emissions (TEOAE) and automated auditory brainstem response (AABR) for universal newborn hearing screening programs. Int J Pediatr Otorhinolaryngol. 2008; 72(8):1193-201. DOI: 10.1016/j.ijporl.2008.04.011. View

Olusanya B, Luxon L, Wirz S . Benefits and challenges of newborn hearing screening for developing countries. Int J Pediatr Otorhinolaryngol. 2004; 68(3):287-305. DOI: 10.1016/j.ijporl.2003.10.015. View

Apostolopoulos N, Psarommatis I, Tsakanikos M, Dellagrammatikas H, Douniadakis D . Otoacoustic emission-based hearing screening of a Greek NICU population. Int J Pediatr Otorhinolaryngol. 1999; 47(1):41-8. DOI: 10.1016/s0165-5876(98)00168-2. View

Lin H, Shu M, Chang K, Bruna S . A universal newborn hearing screening program in Taiwan. Int J Pediatr Otorhinolaryngol. 2002; 63(3):209-18. DOI: 10.1016/s0165-5876(02)00011-3. View

Vohr B, Carty L, Moore P, Letourneau K . The Rhode Island Hearing Assessment Program: experience with statewide hearing screening (1993-1996). J Pediatr. 1998; 133(3):353-7. DOI: 10.1016/s0022-3476(98)70268-9. View

10.

. Joint Committee on Infant Hearing. 1994 position statement. ASHA. 1994; 36(12):38-41. View

11.

Downs M, STERRITT G . A guide to newborn and infant hearing screening programs. Arch Otolaryngol. 1967; 85(1):15-22. DOI: 10.1001/archotol.1967.00760040017006. View

12.

Shang Y, Hao W, Gao Z, Xu C, Ru Y, Ni D . An effective compromise between cost and referral rate: A sequential hearing screening protocol using TEOAEs and AABRs for healthy newborns. Int J Pediatr Otorhinolaryngol. 2016; 91:141-145. DOI: 10.1016/j.ijporl.2016.10.025. View

13.

Ngui L, Tang I, Prepageran N, Lai Z . Comparison of distortion product otoacoustic emission (DPOAE) and automated auditory brainstem response (AABR) for neonatal hearing screening in a hospital with high delivery rate. Int J Pediatr Otorhinolaryngol. 2019; 120:184-188. DOI: 10.1016/j.ijporl.2019.02.045. View

14.

Doyle K, Rodgers P, Fujikawa S, Newman E . External and middle ear effects on infant hearing screening test results. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2000; 122(4):477-81. DOI: 10.1067/mhn.2000.102573. View

15.

. Year 2007 position statement: Principles and guidelines for early hearing detection and intervention programs. Pediatrics. 2007; 120(4):898-921. DOI: 10.1542/peds.2007-2333. View

16.

C Ong K, Rivera A, Chan A, Chiong C . Determining concordance and cost impact of otoacoustic emission and automated auditory brainstem response in newborn hearing screening in a tertiary hospital. Int J Pediatr Otorhinolaryngol. 2019; 128:109704. DOI: 10.1016/j.ijporl.2019.109704. View

17.

Doyle K, Fujikawa S, Rogers P, Newman E . Comparison of newborn hearing screening by transient otoacoustic emissions and auditory brainstem response using ALGO-2. Int J Pediatr Otorhinolaryngol. 1998; 43(3):207-11. DOI: 10.1016/s0165-5876(98)00007-x. View

18.

Iwasaki S, Hayashi Y, Seki A, Nagura M, Hashimoto Y, Oshima G . A model of two-stage newborn hearing screening with automated auditory brainstem response. Int J Pediatr Otorhinolaryngol. 2003; 67(10):1099-104. DOI: 10.1016/s0165-5876(03)00199-x. View

19.

Norton S, Gorga M, Widen J, Folsom R, Sininger Y, Cone-Wesson B . Identification of neonatal hearing impairment: summary and recommendations. Ear Hear. 2000; 21(5):529-35. DOI: 10.1097/00003446-200010000-00014. View

20.

Erenberg A, Lemons J, Sia C, Trunkel D, ZIRING P . Newborn and infant hearing loss: detection and intervention.American Academy of Pediatrics. Task Force on Newborn and Infant Hearing, 1998- 1999. Pediatrics. 1999; 103(2):527-30. DOI: 10.1542/peds.103.2.527. View