Hearing screening.

Diagnosing conductive conditions in newborns is challenging for both audiologists and otolaryngologists. Although high-frequency tympanometry (HFT), acoustic stapedial reflex tests, and wideband absorbance measures are useful diagnostic tools, there is performance measure variability in their detection of middle ear conditions. Additional diagnostic sensitivity and specificity measures gained through new technology such as sweep frequency impedance (SFI) measures may assist in the diagnosis of middle ear dysfunction in newborns. The purpose of this study was to determine the test performance of SFI to predict the status of the outer and middle ear in newborns against commonly used reference standards. Automated auditory brainstem response (AABR), HFT (1000 Hz), transient evoked otoacoustic emission (TEOAE), distortion product otoacoustic emission (DPOAE), and SFI tests were administered to the study sample. A total of 188 neonates (98 males and 90 females) with a mean gestational age of 39.4 weeks were included in the sample. Mean age at the time of testing was 44.4 hr. Diagnostic accuracy of SFI was assessed in terms of its ability to identify conductive conditions in neonates when compared with nine different reference standards (including four single tests [AABR, HFT, TEOAE, and DPOAE] and five test batteries [HFT + DPOAE, HFT + TEOAE, DPOAE + TEOAE, DPOAE + AABR, and TEOAE + AABR]), using receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analysis and traditional test performance measures such as sensitivity and specificity. The test performance of SFI against the test battery reference standard of HFT + DPOAE and single reference standard of HFT was high with an area under the ROC curve (AROC) of 0.87 and 0.82, respectively. Although the HFT + DPOAE test battery reference standard performed better than the HFT reference standard in predicting middle ear conductive conditions in neonates, the difference in AROC was not significant. Further analysis revealed that the highest sensitivity and specificity for SFI (86% and 88%, respectively) was obtained when compared with the reference standard of HFT + DPOAE. Among the four single reference standards, SFI had the highest sensitivity and specificity (76% and 88%, respectively) when compared against the HFT reference standard. The high test performance of SFI against the HFT and HFT + DPOAE reference standards indicates that the SFI measure has appropriate diagnostic accuracy in detection of conductive conditions in newborns. Hence, the SFI test could be used as adjunct tool to identify conductive conditions in universal newborn hearing screening programs, and can also be used in diagnostic follow-up assessments.

Hearing impairment in infants after meningitis: Detection by transient evoked otoacoustic emissions

The purpose of this study was to compare the performance of transient evoked otoacoustic emissions (TEOAEs), distortion product otoacoustic emissions (DPOAEs), and auditory brain stem responses (ABRs) as tools for identification of neonatal hearing impairment. A total of 4911 infants including 4478 graduates of neonatal intensive care units, 353 well babies with one or more risk factors for hearing loss (Joint Committee on Infant Hearing, 1994) and 80 well babies without risk factor who did not pass one or more neonatal test were targeted as the potential subject pool on which test performance would be assessed. During the neonatal period, they were evaluated using TEOAEs in response to an 80 dB pSPL click, DPOAE responses to two stimulus conditions (L1 = L2 = 75 dB SPL and L1 = 65 dB SPL L2 = 50 dB SPL), and ABR elicited by a 30 dB nHL click. In an effort to describe test performance, these "at-risk" infants were asked to return for behavioral audiologic assessments, using visual reinforcement audiometry (VRA) at 8 to 12 mo corrected age, regardless of neonatal test results. Sixty-four percent of these subjects returned and reliable VRA data were obtained on 95.6% of these returnees. This approach is in contrast to previous studies in which, by necessity, efforts were made to follow only those infants who "failed" the neonatal screening tests. The accuracy of the neonatal measures in predicting hearing status at 8 to 12 mo corrected age was determined. Only those infants who provided reliable, monaural VRA test results were included in the analysis. Separate analyses were performed without regard to intercurrent events (i.e., events between the neonatal and VRA tests that could cause their results to disagree), and then after accounting for the possible influence of intercurrent events such as otitis media and late-onset or progressive hearing loss. Low refer rates were achieved for the stopping criteria used in the present study, especially when a protocol similar to the one recommended in the National Institutes of Health (1993) Consensus Conference Report was followed. These analyses, however, do not completely describe test performance because they did not compare neonatal screening test results with a gold standard test of hearing. Test performance, as measured by the area under a relative operating characteristic curve, were similar for all three neonatal tests when neonatal test results were compared with VRA data obtained at 8 to 12 mo corrected age. However, ABRs were more successful at determining auditory status at 1 kHz, compared with the otoacoustic emission (OAE) tests. Performance was more similar across all three tests when they were used to identify hearing loss at 2 and 4 kHz. No test performed perfectly. Using either the two- or three-frequency pure-tone average (PTA), with a fixed false alarm rate of 20%, hit rates for the neonatal tests, in general, exceeded 80% when hearing impairment was defined as behavioral thresholds > or =30 dB HL. All three tests performed similarly when a two-frequency (2 and 4 kHz) PTA was used as the gold standard; OAE test performance decreased when a three-frequency PTA (adding 1 kHz) was used as the gold standard definition. For both PTA and all three neonatal screening measures, however, hit rate increased as the magnitude of hearing loss increased. Singly, all three neonatal hearing screening tests resulted in low refer rates, especially if referrals for follow-up were made only for the cases in which stopping criteria were not met in both ears. Following a protocol similar to that recommended in the National Institutes of Health (1993) Consensus Conference report resulted in refer rates that were less than 4%. TEOAEs at 80 dB pSPL, DPOAE at L1 = 65, L2 = 50 dB SPL and ABR at 30 dB nHL measured during the neonatal period, and as implemented in the current study, performed similarly at predicting behavioral hearing status at 8 to 12

The Big Screen Difference

Prevalence of sensorineural hearing loss is 1-3 per 1,000 newborns. Transient evoked otoacoustic emission (TEOAE) and automated auditory brain stem responses (AABR) are most frequently used methods in newborn hearing screening programmes. The aim of this study was to examine hearing function in newborns with and without risk factors for hearing loss. We investigated accuracy and feasibility of two automated technologies: transient otoacoustic emissions (TEOAE) and auditory brain stem response (AABR) in early detection of hearing loss. In prospective study, 907 newborns were tested on both ears with transient evoked otoacoustic emissions (TEOAE). If results were "refer" we performed automated brain stem response (AABR). Two stage screening protocols were used with two screening technologies (TEOAE, AABR). Results showed screening pass of 86.3% of the newborns in the first protocol and 99.3% in the second. Six (0.7%) newborns had positive screening results for hearing loss. They were referred for additional audolologic tests (otoacoustic emissions, tympanometry, and auditory brain stem response) to confirm or exclude hearing loss. Audiologic examination was performed up to the third month of life. We confirmed unilateral sensorineural hearing loss in two babies. Average test time per ear was 21.3 +/- 19.4 s forTEOAE and 135.3 +/- 67.9 s for AABR. TEOAE, AABR tests are confidential, noninvasive and feasible methods and can help to detect hearing impairment.

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the test performance of wideband absorbance (WBA) in terms of its ability to predict the outer and middle ear status as determined by nine reference standards. Automated auditory brainstem response (AABR), high-frequency (1000 Hz) tympanometry (HFT), transient evoked otoacoustic emission (TEOAE), and distortion product otoacoustic emission (DPOAE) tests were performed on 298 ears (144 right, 154 left) of 192 (108 males, 84 females) neonates with a mean age of 43.7 hours (SD = 21.3, range = 8.3 to 152.2 hr). WBA was measured from 0.25 to 8 kHz using clicks under ambient pressure conditions. Test performance of WBA was assessed in terms of its ability to identify conductive conditions in neonates when compared with nine reference standards (including four single tests and five test batteries) using the receiver operating characteristic analysis. The test performance of WBA against the test battery reference standards was better than that against single test reference standards. The area under the receiver operating characteristic curve reached a high value of 0.78 for HFT + TEOAE + DPOAE and AABR + TEOAE + DPOAE reference standards. Within the ears that passed each of the reference standards, there were no significant differences in WBA. However, for the ears that failed each of the test standards, there were significant differences in WBA. The region between 1 and 4 kHz provided the best discriminability to evaluate the conductive status compared with other frequencies. WBA is a desirable measure of conductive conditions in newborns due to its high performance in classifying ears with conductive loss as determined by the best performing surrogate gold standards (HFT + TEOAE + DPOAE and AABR + TEOAE + DPOAE).

PurposeNewborns who fail the transient evoked otoacoustic emissions (TEOAE) but pass the automatic auditory brainstem response (AABR) in universal newborn hearing screening (UNHS), frequently have no further diagnostic test or follow-up. The present study aimed to investigate whether hearing loss might be missed by ignoring neonatal TEOAE failure in the presence of normal AABR.MethodsA retrospective analysis was conducted in newborns presenting between 2017 and 2021 to a tertiary referral centre due to failure in the initial UNHS. The main focus was on infants who failed TEOAE tests, but passed AABR screening. The clinical characteristics and audiometric outcomes were analysed and compared with those of other neonates.ResultsAmong 1,095 referred newborns, 253 (23%) failed TEOAE despite passing AABR screening. Of the 253 affected infants, 154 returned for follow-up. At 1-year follow-up, 46 (28%) achieved normal audiometric results. 32 (21%) infants had permanent hearing loss (HL) confirmed by diagnostic ABR, 58 (38%) infants had HL solely due to middle ear effusion (MEE), and for 18 (12%) infants HL was suspected without further differentiation. The majority of permanent HL was mild (78% mild vs. 13% moderate vs. 9% profound). The rate of spontaneous MEE clearance was rather low (29%) leading to early surgical intervention in 36 children. The profile of the risk factors for hearing impairment was similar to that of newborns with failure in both, TEOAE and AABR; however, there was a stronger association between the presence of risk factors and the incidence of HL (relative risk 1.55 vs. 1.06; odds ratio 3.61 vs. 1.80).ConclusionIn newborns, the discordance between a “refer” in TEOAE and a “pass” in AABR screening is associated with a substantial prevalence of hearing impairment at follow-up, especially in the presence of risk factors.

Comparison of costs and referral rates of 3 universal newborn hearing screening protocols

This article summarizes the results of a multi-center study, "Identification of Neonatal Hearing Impairment," sponsored by the National Institutes of Health. The purpose of this study was to determine the performance characteristics of three measures of peripheral auditory system status, transient evoked otoacoustic emissions (TEOAEs), distortion product otoacoustic emissions (DPOAEs), and auditory brain stem responses (ABR), applied in the neonatal period in predicting hearing status at 8 to 12 mo corrected age. The design and implementation of this study are described in the first two articles in this series. Seven institutions participated in this study; 7179 infants were evaluated. Graduates of the neonatal intensive care unit and well babies with one or more risk factors for hearing loss were targeted for follow-up testing using visual reinforcement audiometry (VRA) at 8 to 12 mo corrected age. Neonatal test performance was evaluated using the VRA data as the "gold standard." The major results of the study are described in the nine articles preceding this summary article. TEOAEs in response to an 80 dB pSPL click, DPOAEs in response to L1 = 65 and L2 = 50 dB SPL and ABR in response to a 30 dB nHL click performed well as predictors of permanent hearing loss of 30 dB or greater at 8 to 12 mo corrected age. All measures were robust with respect to infant state, test environment and infant medical status. No test performed perfectly. Based on the data from this study, the 1993 National Institutes of Health Consensus Conference-recommended protocol-an OAE test followed by an ABR test for those infants failing the OAE test-would result in low referral rate (96 to 98%). TEOAEs for 80 dB pSPL, ABR for 30 dB nHL and DPOAEs for L1 = 65 dB SPL and L2 = 50 dB SPL perform well in predicting hearing status based on the area under the relative operating characteristic curve. Accuracy for the OAE measurements are best when the speech awareness threshold or the pure-tone average for 2.0 kHz and 4 kHz are used as the gold standard. ABR accuracy varies little as a function of the frequencies included in the gold standard. In addition, 96% of those infants returning for VRA at 8 to 12 mo corrected age were able to provide reliable ear-specific behavioral thresholds using insert earphones and a rigorous psychophysical VRA protocol.

Year 2000 Position Statement: Principles and Guidelines for Early Hearing Detection and Intervention Programs.

To compare the initial referral rate, the accurate identification rate of congenital hearing loss, and the cost between one step with transient evoked otoacoustic emissions (TEOAEs), two steps with TEOAE and automated auditory brainstem response (AABR), and one step with AABR in newborn hearing screening program. The aim of this study is to compare their efficacy between our three different protocols and to see which one is most cost-effective. From November 1998 to April 2006, 25,588 healthy newborns were screened for hearing loss in Mackay Memorial Hospital, Taipei. In the periods from November 1998 to January 2004, from February 2004 to February 2005, and from March 2005 to April 2006, the screening tools used were TEOAE alone (n = 18,260), TEOAE plus AABR (n = 3,540), and AABR (n = 3,788), respectively. A statistically significant decrease in referral rate was achieved in the group using AABR as screening tools when compared with TEOAE plus AABR and TEOAE alone (0.8 versus 1.6 versus 5.8%). The accurate identification rate of congenital hearing loss was 0.42% in AABR protocol, 0.25% in TEOAE and AABR protocol, and 0.45% in TEOAE protocol, which was not statistically significant. The total direct costs (including predischarge screening and postdischarge follow-up costs) per screening were US $10.04 for the program using TEOAE alone, US $8.60 for TEOAE plus AABR, and US $7.33 for AABR. The intangible cost (parental anxiety) was much higher in the earlier program due to higher referral rate. In the efficacy of the hearing screening program using the one-step TEOAE, two-step TEOAE and AABR, and one-step AABR programs, the latter significantly decreased the referral rate from 5.8, to 1.6, and to 0.8%. No significant difference was noted between their accurate identification rates of congenital hearing loss. The total costs, including expenditures and intangible cost, were much lower in the protocol with AABR due to reduction in false positives.

Comparison of distortion product otoacoustic emission (DPOAE) and automated auditory brainstem response (AABR) for neonatal hearing screening in a hospital with high delivery rate

Outcomes with OAE and AABR screening in the first 48 h—Implications for newborn hearing screening in developing countries

To evaluate the costs and performance characteristics associated with the start-up phase of Universal Newborn Hearing Screening Programs, one utilizing automated auditory brainstem response (AABR) and the other using transient evoked otoacoustic emissions (TEOAE). Economic and performance data were collected at the initiation of both screening programs. Data were collected until 1500 newborn infants were screened or until a referral rate for further audiologic evaluation at hospital discharge of less than or equal to 5% was achieved. Data collected included screening pass/fail rates, referral rates and personnel, equipment, and supply utilization. Actual costs of personnel, equipment, and supplies were used. Statistical comparisons of proportions using z-statistic with the one-tailed test and an alpha of 0.01 were made. Screening in the AABR program was performed by neonatal nurses, whereas screening in the TEOAE program was performed by master's level audiologists. The average age at initial screen was 29 hours for TEOAE, and 9.5 hours for AABR. Eighty-four percent of infants was screened within 24 hours in the AABR program, in contrast to 35% in the TEOAE program. Throughout the duration of the study, the referral rate at hospital discharge remained approximately 15% for the TEOAE program. The AABR referral rate began at 8% and was less than 4% at the completion of the study. Pre-discharge total costs for initiating and establishing the programs were US$49,316 for TEOAE and US$47,553 for AABR. Cost per infant screened was US$32.23 and US$33.68, respectively. When post-discharge screening and diagnostic evaluation costs were included, the total cost per infant screened was US$58.07 for TEOAE and US$45.85 for AABR. AABR appears to be the preferred method for universal newborn hearing screening. AABR was associated with the lowest costs, achieved the lowest referral rates at hospital discharge, and had the quickest learning curve to achieve those rates.

We here present the results of the first eight years of the newborn hearing screening programme in Iran, with a view to establishing the prevalence of hearing impairment among infants, and the efficacy of the programme. A total of 3,350,995 infants were screened using the series method of transient evoked otoacoustic emissions (TEOAEs)/automated auditory brainstem responses (AABRs), between 2005 and 2012. The infants were first tested for TEOAEs (three times). Based on the results of this test, the positive cases were referred to the next stage, where they were tested for AABRs. If they also tested positive on AABRs, they were referred to the diagnostic and rehabilitation stages. Results of this study indicated an infant hearing impairment prevalence of 3 per 1000. Although this rate was as high as 5 per 1000 in the early years of the programme, it decreased to 2.6 per 1000 in the last year. The absolute referral rate was 14.5% in the first stage, which decreased to 0.9% and 0.2% in the second and the third stages, respectively. The follow-up rate was 70% in the first stage, which increased up to 73% and 85% in the second and the third stages, respectively. The study results suggest that the prevalence of hearing impairment in infants in Iran is comparable with that in developed and developing countries, and that the series TEOAEs/AABRs method used in the screening programme in Iran is efficient.