A universal newborn hearing screening program in Taiwan

Lin, Hung-Ching; Shu, Min-Tsan; Chang, Ke-Chang; Bruna, Sharon M.

doi:10.1016/s0165-5876(02)00011-3

Cited by 47 publications

(49 citation statements)

References 19 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Our results were consistent with those reported by other researchers [8][9][10][11][12][13][14][15][16][17][18][19][20][21][22][23][24][25][26].…”

Section: Resultssupporting

confidence: 94%

“…TEOAE tests are generally thought to be easier to administer [6] (as scalp electrodes are not required) and faster [5,7], offering referral rates for the first screening that range from 6% to 12% [8][9][10][11][12]. These rates can even increase in preterm infants [13][14][15] and newborns younger than 48 h up to 60% [16][17][18][19].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…AABR tests yield lower first-screening referral rates (1-4%) [7][8][9]11,[20][21][22]. If the program is a two-step screen, the TEOAE referral rate following the second test can drop to 6-7% [10,12,[23][24][25][26]. However, AABR seems to give fewer false positives, which range from 1% to 2% after the second screening step [5,11,18,20,22].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Comparison of two-step transient evoked otoacoustic emissions (TEOAE) and automated auditory brainstem response (AABR) for universal newborn hearing screening programs

Benito-Orejas

Ramírez

Morais

et al. 2008

International Journal of Pediatric Otorhinolaryngology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

SummaryObjective: Both transitory auditory otoemissions (TEOAE) and automated auditory brainstem responses (AABR) are considered adequate methods for universal hearing screening. The goal of this study was to compare the results obtained with each device, applying the same screening procedure. The population studied included all well newborns and those admitted to neonatal intensive care units (NICU). The first screening was normally undertaken with well babies during the first 48 h of life, before hospital discharge. Infants referred from this first step underwent a second screening after hospital discharge, before they were a month old. Results: The results from each study group were compared and analyzed for significant differences. TEOAE screening yielded 10.2% fail results from the first screening step; AABR gave 2.6%. In the second screening step, 2% of the newborns screened with TEOAE were referred, whereas 0.32% of those screened with AABR were referred. These differences are statistically significant.

show abstract

“…Our results were consistent with those reported by other researchers [8][9][10][11][12][13][14][15][16][17][18][19][20][21][22][23][24][25][26].…”

Section: Resultssupporting

confidence: 94%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Comparison of two-step transient evoked otoacoustic emissions (TEOAE) and automated auditory brainstem response (AABR) for universal newborn hearing screening programs

Benito-Orejas

Ramírez

Morais

et al. 2008

International Journal of Pediatric Otorhinolaryngology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Kemp demonstrated existence of evoked otoacoustic emissions in 1978.There are two widely used evoked otoacoustic emissions (EOAEs) measurements that have become routine procedures in the clinical test battery -transient-evoked OAEs (TEOAEs) and distortion product OAEs (DPOAEs) [6]. Kemp reported TEOAEs were simpler than DPOAEs in terms of the technical complexity of the test and TEOAEs required less testing time [7].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Diagnostic Accuracy of Distortion Product Otoacoustic Emissions (DPOAE) and Transient Evoked Otoacoustic Emissions (TEOAE) in High Risk Newborn: A Comparative Study

Maung¹,

Lwin²,

Aung³

et al. 2016

Clin Pediatr

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Introduction: Hearing impairment is one of the commonest congenital disabilities in the world. Early diagnosis is essential to minimize or to prevent the disability. There are many screening methods and protocols for newborn hearing screening. TEOAE has high sensitivity and less time consuming than DPOAE. DPOAE is highly specific but more time consuming than TEOAE. This study aims to compare the accuracy of DPOAE and TEOAE by using ABR evaluation on high risk newborn.

show abstract

“…O diagnóstico e a intervenção precoces são de fundamental importância no desenvolvimento das crianças com alterações auditivas 1-4. Muito tem se falado da importância de realização de TAN logo após o nascimento 1,[5][6][7][8][9][10] . Os métodos objetivos mais utilizados são as emissões otoacústicas (EOA) e a audiometria de tronco cerebral (ABR) [9][10][11][12][13][14] .…”

Section: Introductionunclassified

Avaliação da onda V da audiometria de tronco cerebral de crianças reprovadas na triagem auditiva neonatal

Marques

Chiriboga

Soares

2003

Rev. Bras. Otorrinolaringol.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

A universal newborn hearing screening program in Taiwan

Cited by 47 publications

References 19 publications

Comparison of two-step transient evoked otoacoustic emissions (TEOAE) and automated auditory brainstem response (AABR) for universal newborn hearing screening programs

Comparison of two-step transient evoked otoacoustic emissions (TEOAE) and automated auditory brainstem response (AABR) for universal newborn hearing screening programs

Diagnostic Accuracy of Distortion Product Otoacoustic Emissions (DPOAE) and Transient Evoked Otoacoustic Emissions (TEOAE) in High Risk Newborn: A Comparative Study

Avaliação da onda V da audiometria de tronco cerebral de crianças reprovadas na triagem auditiva neonatal

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About