Newborn Hearing Screening and Early Diagnostic in the NICU

Colella-Santos, Maria Francisca; Hein, Thaís Antonelli Diniz; Souza, Gabriele Libano de; Amaral, Maria Isabel Ramos do; Casali, Raquel Leme

doi:10.1155/2014/845308

Cited by 45 publications

(54 citation statements)

References 32 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…These three above studies seemed to that higher referral rate in NICU than us were observed in developed and developing countries. The more reasonable lower referral rate in our NICU study could be attributed to be a little late time set for hearing screening when infants were transferred to NBC with an average time of 13 Days, speculated to be late than the above three studies[ 17 – 19 ]. The second probable reason for lower referral rate in our NICU group could be attributed to our hearing screener with well experienced (> 10 years work) full-time nursery background.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 81%

“…Our 2.8% referral rate was also much lower than 9.2% by van Dommelen [ 18 ] NICU study in Dutch, in which their refer rate was 9.2%(2933/32038) using AABR and 95.8% of infants were screened < 1 months, but without mention of its average screening time. Additionally, in one Brazil study[ 19 ], their refer rate was 4.1% using after twice AABR screening without statement of its average screening time. These three above studies seemed to that higher referral rate in NICU than us were observed in developed and developing countries.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Study of UNHS in NICU babies has not been conducted before in Taiwan and several in other countries[ 17 – 19 ], however which showed much higher refer rate in NICU in U.S. of 4.9%[ 17 ], Dutch of 9.2%[ 18 ] and Brazil of 4.1%[ 19 ]. So, the aims of study were to assess whether the screening babies in the WBN and NICU using AABR enables achieving the three aforementioned goals[ 6 – 7 ], namely a screening rate >95%; a referral rate <4%; and a diagnostic follow-up rate >70% and compared the average age of congenital HL diagnosis as well as the prevalence of congenital HL between WBN and NICU babies.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Comparison of Newborn Hearing Screening in Well-Baby Nursery and NICU: A Study Applied to Reduce Referral Rate in NICU

Chen

Huang

et al. 2016

PLoS ONE

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

ObjectivesTo determine whether newborn hearing screening in a well-baby nursery (WBN) and neonatal intensive care unit (NICU) nursery: 1) meet three targeted, screening, referral, and diagnostic follow-up rates; 2) compare the average age of diagnosis for infants admitted to the WIN and NICU; and 3) determine prevalence of hearing loss in neonatal population; and 4) try to find a practical newborn hearing screening time algorithm to reduce refer rate in NICUMaterials and MethodsIt examined 15,624 newborns in the WBN (13,676) and NICU (1948) screened for congenital HL using AABR. The variables analyzed in it were the screening rate, referral rate, follow-up rate, diagnostic rate and diagnostic age, prevalence rate, degrees of congenital bilateral HL. The study was approved by the hospital’s institutional review board (13MMHISO23).ResultsThe screening rates were 99.8% and 99.6% in the WBN and NICU groups, respectively, without significant difference. The referral rates were 0.7% and 2.8% in the WBN and NICU groups, with significant difference. Furthermore, the diagnostic follow-up rates were 76.7% and 89.1% in the WBN and NICU groups, without significant difference. The average initial diagnostic ages were 1.9 months and 3.8 months in the WBN and NICU groups, with significant difference. The prevalence of congenital bilateral hearing loss were 0.27% and 1.6% in the WBN and NICU groups, with significant difference.ConclusionThe screening, referral and follow-up rate in the WBN and NICU groups were equivalent to the quality indicators. For NICU group, screening and diagnostic follow up were performed later than those in WBN group; however the lower referral rate in our NICU group was successfully achieved in this study and can be applied clinically. The prevalence of congenital bilateral hearing loss was higher in the NICU group than in the WBN group.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 81%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Comparison of Newborn Hearing Screening in Well-Baby Nursery and NICU: A Study Applied to Reduce Referral Rate in NICU

Chen

Huang

et al. 2016

PLoS ONE

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…After the brainstorming session, modifications were not suggested to ten items (2,3,4,7,12,14,20,21, 27 and 31), while the modifications deemed necessary for 25 items. Items that were the most commented by the parents guided the discussion among experts.…”

Section: Establishment Of Alterations By Item From the Notes Of Parementioning

confidence: 99%

“…Several instruments address the issue of factors that determine auditory and language skills (1,2,3) , many of them individualizing the perception of the family in relation to the child's language development (4,5,6) . The issue of therapeutic fit with infants has also been discussed.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

LittlEars® – Questionário auditivo: adaptação semântica e cultural da versão em Português Brasileiro em pais de crianças com deficiência auditiva

Leandro

Costa

Mendes

et al. 2016

Audiol., Commun. Res.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose: Semantic and cultural adaptation of a preliminary Portuguese version of the questionnaire LittlEars® in families of children with hearing loss. Methods: Instrument administered as an interview or questionnaire, using a validated translation of LittlEars® Questionnaire in Portuguese with parents of children with hearing loss up to two years of hearing age. Parent's comments, questions, suggestions, examples, comments or difficulties were used for development of the adapted version. A brainstorming session with a group of experts was held to validate the final version. Results: Participants were 37 individuals who answered the questionnaire, parents of 32 children. Only four parents preferred to answer the questionnaire format, while 28 preferred to answer it as an interview. In the interview format, parents had difficulty understanding different items. Upon review and discussion of the comments of the families, a modified version was proposed. Conclusion: Changes in the questionnaire items were related to vocabulary, idiomatic expressions and unknown examples. The results of the questionnaire LittlEars® varied depending on hearing age and Speech Intelligibility Index -SII, suggesting that the adapted translation has sensitivity for measuring the hearing abilities. Other studies should apply the new version and final validation.Keywords: Hearing loss; Parents; Hearing aids; Hearing tests; Early intervention (education) RESUMOObjetivo: Adaptação semântica e cultural de versão preliminar em português do questionário LittlEars® em famílias de crianças com deficiência auditiva. Métodos: Instrumento administrado como entrevista ou questionário, em tradução validada do Questionário LittlEars® em português em pais de crianças com deficiência auditiva com até dois anos de idade auditiva. Comentários, dúvidas, sugestões, exemplos, críticas ou dificuldades dos pais foram utilizadas para elaboração da versão adaptada. Foi então realizada reunião para brainstorming com grupo de especialistas, para validação da versão final. Resultados: Trinta e sete sujeitos, pais ou responsáveis de 32 crianças, responderam ao questionário. Somente quatro pais preferiram responder no formato de questionário, enquanto 28, em entrevista. No formato entrevista, houve dificuldade de compreensão em diversos itens. Após análise e discussão dos comentários das famílias, foi proposta uma versão modificada. Conclusão: As modificações nos itens do questionário estiveram relacionadas a vocabulário, expressões idiomáticas e exemplos desconhecidos. Os resultados obtidos com o questionário LittlEars® no grupo estudado variaram conforme a idade auditiva e o Índice de Inteligibilidade de Fala (Speech Intelligibility Index -SII), o que sugere que a tradução adaptada tem sensibilidade para medir as habilidades auditivas. São necessários estudos com a versão proposta, em uma população maior, visando sua validação final.

show abstract

Referral rate and false-positive rates in a hearing screening program among high-risk newborns

Thangavelu

Martakis

Feldmann

et al. 2023

Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Aim More studies exploring referral rates and false-positive rates are needed to make hearing screening programs in newborns better and cost-effective. Our aim was to study the referral and false-positivity rates among high-risk newborns in our hearing screening program and to analyze the factors potentially associated with false-positive hearing screening test results. Methods A retrospective cohort study was done among the newborns hospitalized at a university hospital from January 2009 to December 2014 that underwent hearing screening with a two-staged AABR screening protocol. Referral rates and false-positivity rates were calculated and possible risk factors for false-positivity were analyzed. Results 4512 newborns were screened for hearing loss in the neonatology department. The referral rate for the two-staged AABR-only screening was 3.8% with false-positivity being 2.9%. Our study showed that the higher the birthweight or gestational age of the newborn, the lower the odds of the hearing screening results being false-positive, and the higher the chronological age of the infant at the time of screening, the higher the odds of the results being false-positive. Our study did not show a clear association between the mode of delivery or gender and false-positivity. Conclusion Among high-risk infants, prematurity and low-birthweight increased the rate of false-positivity in the hearing screening, and the chronological age at the time of the test seems to be significantly associated with false-positivity.

show abstract

Newborn Hearing Screening and Early Diagnostic in the NICU

Cited by 45 publications

References 32 publications

Comparison of Newborn Hearing Screening in Well-Baby Nursery and NICU: A Study Applied to Reduce Referral Rate in NICU

Comparison of Newborn Hearing Screening in Well-Baby Nursery and NICU: A Study Applied to Reduce Referral Rate in NICU

LittlEars® – Questionário auditivo: adaptação semântica e cultural da versão em Português Brasileiro em pais de crianças com deficiência auditiva

Referral rate and false-positive rates in a hearing screening program among high-risk newborns

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About