Abstract
BackgroundCongenital hearing loss is one of the most frequent birth defects, and Early Detection and Intervention has been found to improve language outcomes. The American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) and the Joint Committee on Infant Hearing (JCIH) established quality of care process indicators and benchmarks for Universal Newborn Hearing Screening (UNHS). We have aggregated some of these indicators/benchmarks according to the three pillars of universality, timely detection and overreferral. When dealing with inter-comparison, relying on complete and standardised literature data becomes crucial.The purpose of this paper is to verify whether literature data on UNHS programmes have included sufficient information to allow inter-programme comparisons according to the indicators considered.MethodsWe performed a systematic search identifying UNHS studies and assessing the quality of programmes.ResultsThe identified 12 studies demonstrated heterogeneity in criteria for referring to further examinations during the screening phase and in identifying high-risk neonates, protocols, tests, staff, and testing environments. Our systematic review also highlighted substantial variability in reported performance data. In order to optimise the reporting of screening protocols and process performance, we propose a checklist. Another result is the difficulty in guaranteeing full respect for the criteria of universality, timely detection and overreferral.ConclusionsStandardisation in reporting UNHS experiences may also have a positive impact on inter-program comparisons, hence favouring the emergence of recognised best practices.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12887-015-0404-x) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.
Highlights
Congenital hearing loss is one of the most frequent birth defects, and Early Detection and Intervention has been found to improve language outcomes
Nelson and colleagues [19] found that children with hearing loss identified through Universal Newborn Hearing Screening (UNHS) obtained better language outcomes at school age than those not screened, and that screened infants identified with hearing loss had significantly earlier referral, diagnosis and treatment than those not screened
The following authors were contacted for additional details: Calevo [34] to specify whether the second auditory brainstem response (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
Summary
Congenital hearing loss is one of the most frequent birth defects, and Early Detection and Intervention has been found to improve language outcomes. In the absence of newborn screening, parents can only observe their infant for any inattention or unresponsiveness to sound [7, 8], often leading to delayed diagnosis of hearing loss until age 14 months on average [9]. This delay results in impaired language, learning, and speech development [10, 11], with. Numerous observational cohort studies [17, 21,22,23] have shown that early detection and intervention improve long-term reading and communication abilities when compared with no screening or late distraction hearing screening
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Free) 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a call
