Determining concordance and cost impact of otoacoustic emission and automated auditory brainstem response in newborn hearing screening in a tertiary hospital

Protocol and programme factors associated with referral and loss to follow-up from newborn hearing screening: a systematic review

Background

An effective newborn hearing screening programme has low referral rate and low loss to follow-up (LTFU) rate after referral from initial screening. This systematic review identified studies evaluating the effect of protocol and programme factors on these two outcomes, including the screening method used and the infant group.

Methods

Five databases were searched (latest: April 2021). Included studies reported original data from newborn hearing screening and described the target outcomes against a protocol or programme level factor. Studies were excluded if results were only available for one risk condition, for each ear, or for < 100 infants, or if methodological bias was observed. Included studies were evaluated for quality across three domains: sample, screening and outcome, using modified criteria from the Ottawa-Newcastle and QUADAS-2 scales. Findings from the included studies were synthesised in tables, figures and text.

Results

Fifty-eight studies reported on referral rate, 8 on LTFU rate, and 35 on both. Only 15 studies defined LTFU. Substantial diversity in referral and LTFU rate was observed across studies. Twelve of fourteen studies that evaluated screening method showed lower referral rates with aABR compared to TEOAE for well babies (WB). Rescreening before hospital discharge and screening after 3 days of age reduced referral rates. Studies investigating LTFU reported lower rates for programmes that had audiologist involvement, did not require fees for step 2, were embedded in a larger regional or national programme, and scheduled follow-up in a location accessible to the families. In programmes with low overall LTFU, higher LTFU was observed for infants from the NICU compared to WB.

Conclusion

Although poor reporting and exclusion of non-English articles may limit the generalisability from this review, key influential factors for referral and LTFU rates were identified. Including aABR in WB screening can effectively reduce referral rates, but it is not the only solution. The reported referral and LTFU rates vary largely across studies, implying the contribution of several parameters identified in this review and the context in which the programme is performed. Extra attention should be paid to infants with higher risk for hearing impairment to ensure their return to follow-up.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12887-022-03218-0.

Change to Hearing Loss-Related Risks and Screening in Preterm Infants

Hearing loss is one of the most common congenital defects in infancy; it increases speech and language delays and adversely affects academic achievement and socialemotional development. The risk of hearing loss in premature infants is higher than that in normal newborns, and because of the fragility of the auditory nervous system, it is more vulnerable to different risk factors. The hearing screening guidelines in current use were proposed by the American Academy of Pediatrics and updated in 2007, but there are no uniform guidelines for hearing screening in preterm infants. This review focuses on the risk factors related to hearing loss in premature infants, hearing screening strategies, and reasons for failure. The aim is to provide a more comprehensive understanding of hearing development in preterm infants to achieve early detection and early intervention. At the same time, attention should be paid to delayed auditory maturation in preterm infants to avoid excessive intervention. KEY POINTS: · Hearing loss is very common in infancy, especially in premature infants.. · Genetic factors, infection, hyperbilirubinemia, drugs, and noise are the main causes.. · We should pay attention to the delayed hearing maturity of premature infants and avoid excessive intervention..

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

Objective: 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. Methods: 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. Results: The pass rate of TEOAE and AABR increased significantly with the increase of first screening time (P < 0.05), and the false positive rate decreased significantly with the increase of first screening time (P < 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%) (P < 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, P < 0.05). The failure rate of TEOAE two-step screening was 1.59%, which was significantly lower than one-step AABR. Conclusions: 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.