Newborn hearing screening in a single private Japanese obstetric hospital

Abstract

In the present study, screening results at 1 month of age resembled the final diagnosis obtained at 6 months of age; out of 31 REFER cases, 26 cases were diagnosed with hearing loss. In contrast, in the multiple institutional study, both unilateral and bilateral REFER rates were much higher than the rates of final hearing loss. Concerning the final diagnoses of bilateral hearing loss, the authors' results (0.10%) and the multiple institutional studies' results (0.05% in low-risk and 2.19% in high-risk neonates) were comparable to the results reported in the USA. To expand the newborn hearing screening program, it is crucial that authority and institutions concerned promote the development of a national or prefecture-based early hearing loss identification and intervention network.

Evaluating reporting and process quality of publications on UNHS: a systematic review of programmes

“…We identified 1,641 citations with eight additional citations from hand-searching personal literature files and reference lists, yielding 1,649 in all but only 1,151 non-duplicate citations. After abstract review, 90 met criteria for full text retrieval, and of these, 12 articles [ 33 – 44 ] met criteria for full analysis (Additional file 2 : Figure S1); these include two studies [ 35 , 38 ] that reported only on neonates without risk factors but were included since those were part of a UNHS programme. The following authors were contacted for additional details: Calevo [ 34 ] to specify whether the second ABR test considered was automatic or diagnostic; Guastini [ 37 ] to clarify the false-positive rate of the fourth stage considered in their programme; Kennedy [ 39 ] for clarifications on lost to follow-up; Lin [ 41 ] for clarifications on the full audiological evaluation phase.…”

“…; unilateral N.R. Quite room 12 Tsuchiya H, 2006 [ 44 ] – Japan - Prospective cohort 1999, July + 64 m N.R. 1 Hospital ABR a 1; 1; 2 35 dB HL (aABR); unilateral Technician N.R.…”

“…Audiological risk classification was based on different criteria: JCIH recommendations [ 33 , 34 , 36 , 38 ], and ad-hoc criteria; [ 37 , 39 , 42 , 43 ] four studies provided no details on this point. [ 35 , 40 , 41 , 44 ] One of the studies using JCIH criteria did not use the most recent guidelines available at the start of their recruiting period [ 34 ], and another one [ 36 ] reported using a standard that was unavailable at the start of their recruitment.…”

“…In Lin and colleagues [ 41 ], dABR was performed at age 1 month, with all other gold standard examinations performed at age 3–6 months. Screening programmes involved a maximum of two [ 33 , 35 , 38 , 39 , 41 , 43 , 44 ], three [ 36 , 41 , 42 ] or four [ 34 , 37 , 40 ] examinations prior to definitive audiological evaluation and in six cases [ 33 , 35 , 38 , 39 , 41 , 44 ] no distinction was reported for neonates with audiologic risk factors.

Fig.

…”

“…These 12 published studies reported on 14 screening protocols (Table 2 ) because during separate time frames, one study [ 36 ] reported three different protocols (only TEOAE, only ABR and both). Only otoemission was used in five protocols [ 33 , 38 , 40 , 41 , 43 ], only ABR in three [ 35 , 41 , 44 ] and both techniques in six [ 34 , 36 , 37 , 39 , 41 , 42 ]. For neonates staying in NICU for more than 5 days, five protocols [ 35 – 37 , 41 , 44 ] (the “c” protocol in Lin et al [ 41 ]) screened with ABR as recommended by the JCIH.…”