Joint Committee On Infant Hearing Research Articles

Epidemiological Profile of Neonates in Hearing Screening at a Maternity of a Tertiary Hospital in the state of Santa Catarina, Brazil.

Introduction The newborn hearing screening (NHS) test aims the early diagnostic of hearing deficits that may also harm the full development of communication and learning of the affected child. Objective Trace the clinical and epidemiological profile of children born between July 2016 and July 2019; in addition to the outcome of the NHSs and factors related to failure in the hearing tests at a maternity of a tertiary hospital in Santa Catarina, Brazil. Methods The present is a cross-sectional study. A census of those born in the period defined for study was performed and a script was developed for the review of medical records, based on the literature. Results The sample can be considered homogeneous in relation to gender and age. The pregnant women had an average of 30.9 years. There were 30 neonates (1.9%) that did not undergo NHS. New evaluations were required in 288 patients (18.2%). Finally, 24 (1.5% of the population) remained with insufficient results in the retest. The following variables achieved statistical relevance with higher failure rates in tests and/or retests: natural delivery ( p = 0.007), arterial hypertension present ( p = 0.002), use of hydralazine ( p = 0.038), and use of dipyrone in the test ( p = 0.041) and retest ( p = 0.003). Younger mothers had higher levels of normality in the test ( p = 0.003) and retest ( p = 0.161). The correlations between the other variables and the outcomes were not statistically significant. Conclusion False positives (62.8%) in the first test showed a value higher than the ideal goal; those who did not undergo the NHS (1.9%) and who needed evaluation by a specialist, due to failure in the retest (1.5%), are within the quality goals defined by the Joint Committee on Infant Hearing (JCIH) in 2007.

Neonatal hearing screening in Soba University Hospital, Khartoum, Sudan: a cross-sectional study

BackgroundHearing loss in children constitutes a serious obstacle to their optimal development; early detection of hearing disability is vital to improve the outcome of management; currently, in Sudan, there is no national neonatal hearing screening program. The aim of this study is to discuss the results of neonatal hearing screening among newborns admitted to neonatal intensive care unit (NICU) and well-baby nursery, at Soba University Hospital, Khartoum (Sudan), and to reflect the magnitude of risk factors for hearing impairment present in these two different groups of newborns.MethodsIn this hospital-based cross-sectional study, newborns who were admitted to the NICU or being observed in the well-baby nursery in the period from February 2014 to February 2019 were screened for hearing loss using automated otoacoustic emission (OAE) device after recording the risk factors for hearing loss according to the Joint Committee on Infant Hearing (JCIH) year 2007 position statement and after conducting a detailed ear and general physical examination. Newborns who failed this screening test were rescreened using the same device after 48 h, and if they failed again, they underwent confirmatory auditory brainstem response test when they are 6 months old.ResultsOne thousand one hundred twenty newborns were tested; 736 were NICU and 384 were well-baby nursery newborns. The prevalence of hearing impairment after confirmatory test was found to be 10.8 per 1000 in the NICU group and 5.2 per 1000 in the well-baby nursery group considering that the drop rate for the confirmatory test was 50% and 66% respectively which is very high and reflect the poor compliance to the program. The risk factors for hearing loss were more encountered in the NICU group compared to well-baby nursery group. Unmonitored ototoxic drug use was found to be very prevalent and need urgent reconsideration.ConclusionIn this study, the estimated prevalence of neonatal hearing impairment is alarming; risk factors are very evident especially in the NICU group; this reflect the urgent need for establishing an efficient national program for neonatal hearing screening and working to eliminate the preventable risk factors for neonatal hearing impairment in this developing country.

Otoacoustic emission (OAE) features in newborns at Dr. Kariadi Central Genetal Hospital, Semarang, Indonesia

The joint committee on infant hearing (JCIH) recommends the detection and intervention of hearing impairment in newborns. Dr Kariadi Central General Hospital, Semarang, Indonesia is a referral hospital in Central Java province that has implemented an early detection program for hearing lossin newborns. Screening or early detection using otoacoustic emissions (OAE). This study aimed to find out the description of OAE in newborns at Dr. Kariadi Central General Hospital, Semarang. This research was a descriptive analytic using secondary data the OAE results on newborns with or without risk factors (FR) who are treated at Dr. Kariadi Central General Hospital, Semarang in 2020. The result of OAE pass meant that the outer hair cell (OHC) was functioning properly in both ears while refer was if the OHC in one ear or both was not functioning properly. Total 1338 newborns with and without FR whose OAE pass resulted as much as 1297 (97%) and refer 41 (3%). Most risk factors were low birth weight 331 (42%) with the results of OAE pass 312 (94.3%), and refer 19 (5.7%). In conclusion, this study shows that OAE passed in 97% of newborns.

How Audiologists Can Support EHDI Goals

How Audiologists Can Support EHDI Goals

Early detection of hearing loss for infants in Western Australia: Comparison to international benchmarks.

To assess the degree to which timely audiological assessment of congenital hearing loss is achieved at our institution - Perth Children's Hospital, Western Australia, and to review cases which breached this timeframe in order to address barriers to timely assessment. The benchmark used to determine timely assessment is that set out by The Joint Committee on Infant Hearing (JCIH) in which diagnostic audiological testing occurs by three months of age for those who do not pass newborn hearing screening. A retrospective chart review of infants who underwent diagnostic auditory assessment at Perth Children's Hospital between 2016-2019. A total of 151 children were identified as meeting the inclusion criteria and their medical files were reviewed. Time to first dABR was the time point for whether testing was achieved within the 3 month timeframe. Of the 151 children who underwent dABR assessments, 1 was identified as having breached the 90 day time limit (tested on day 91) for which no valid reason for delay could be identified. The timely delivery of dABR assessments in 99.3% of cases within this cohort compares favourably with the literature. Conclusion Timely diagnostic audiological assessment is achievable for children with congenital hearing loss. The reasons for patients breaching this timeframe are explored in the paper along with factors which may help avoid delays.

STUDY OF SOUND LEVELS IN NICU: DESCRIPTIVE STUDY

Introduction: The American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) and the Joint Committee on Infant Hearing (JCIH) have introduced noise as a major physical factor causing pollution in NICUs. The American Academy of Paediatrics recommends that sound levels be lower than 45 dBA in the NICU. They thus suggested that the admittance of infants to these wards might be associated with deafness This project included conducting sound surveys of naturall Methodology: y occurring noise in the NICU environments. There was no direct neonate involvement. Each part has two sections A and B, the section A is from more sick babies requiring Level 3 NICU care, whereas the section B is for babies requiring Level 2 NICU care. The mean num Results: bers of staff present in NICU during Day and Night time is 9 and 6 respectively. For all the infants in section A and section B, monitors were used, infusion pumps were used for all babies in section A and as required in section B. Average ventilated babies/day was 1. Conclusion: The sound levels measured in NICU environment and inside incubator in section A and section B, the results show there is no signicant difference the level of sound exposure to the babies in each section.

Healthcare practitioners’ views about early hearing detection and intervention practices in KwaZulu‑Natal, South Africa

Background. Healthcare practitioners’ views, understanding of and support for early hearing detection and intervention (EHDI) is essential for its effective implementation Objectives. To determine public healthcare practitioners’ views about EHDI at primary healthcare level based on primary-care nurse’s awareness and referral practices related to high-risk factors for hearing loss and the challenges with EHDI implementation. Methods. A customised questionnaire ( α =0.71) was used to survey a sample ( N =38) of relevant healthcare practitioners, including audiologists, speech therapists and ear, nose and throat (ENT) specialists from 11 purposively selected hospitals in KwaZulu-Natal, South Africa (SA). Results. Practitioners had a positive view towards hearing screening being mandatory and that it should form part of the birth package offered to mothers. Approximately 58% of participants agreed that the list of high-risk factors issued by the Joint Committee on Infant Hearing (JCIH) is relevant in the SA context and 50% agreed that infants with hearing loss globally present with similar high-risk factors. Approximately 21% of the participants disagreed with this, suggesting that the risk factors differ among populations. Only 45% of participants considered primary-care nurses to be aware of high-risk factors for hearing loss. Most were thus unlikely to refer infants for further hearing testing. Conclusion. Poor awareness, lack of infrastructure for screening and limited resources necessitate further education and training for nurses on risk factors and resource availability at the primary healthcare level is crucial, considering that the majority of South Africans access services at this level of care.

English

BACKGROUND Hearing loss is a chronic condition, and many cases can be detected in the neonatal period. Recognizing it early is of crucial importance as early auditory rehabilitation would help in child’s comprehensive development. We wanted to assess the prevalence of hearing impairment among high risk newborns admitted to inborn unit of tertiary care centre in Central Kerala and screen for the associated risk factors in these newborns. METHODS Thousand consecutive inborn neonates from Neonatal ICU, Department of Paediatrics, tertiary care centre in Thrissur, Kerala, detected as high risk by Joint Committee on Infant Hearing (JCIH) criteria were enrolled for the study from December 2011 to November 2012 after the approval by Institute’s Ethics Review Board. Risk factor assessment was done before enrolment. A qualified audiologist conducted the test on babies in soundproof chamber. DPOAEs (Distortion Product Otoacoustic Emissions) were used for initial testing after checking ears for debris. Those who failed in the first test were asked to come for a retest after 2 weeks. Those who failed in the retest were asked to report for Brainstem Evoked Response Audiometry (BERA). Those who were diagnosed as having hearing impairment were advised auditory rehabilitation as well as auditory verbal therapy. RESULTS Of the 1000 eligible neonates born in our hospital during the study period (December 2011 to November 2012) 69 were lost to follow up. Among the remaining 931 babies the frequency of hearing impairment was 0.8 %. Among the 931 neonates, 130 had absent response with the first OAE test contributing to 13.9 %. Twenty-one neonates had absent response to second OAE test out of 130 contributing to 16.1 %. The failure rate for second test is 2.2 % of the total population of 931 newborns. Eight of the 21 neonates who were subjected to BERA had severe hearing loss. The prevalence of hearing impairment was 8 per 1000. CONCLUSIONS The prevalence (percentage) of hearing impairment by two staged screening protocol is 0.8 %. Risk factors which were present in these babies were prematurity, low birth weight, low Apgar score, history of exanthematous fever in mother, neonatal jaundice, ototoxic medication history, craniofacial anomalies, and family history of deafness, meningitis and mechanical ventilation. KEYWORDS Otoacoustic Emissions, Brain Stem Evoked Response Audiometry, Risk Factors, Hearing Impairment, Neonates

Análisis de los factores de riesgo y del seguimiento de la hipoacusia de inicio tardío durante 25 años de cribado auditivo

Introducción: En 1972 el Joint Committee on Infant Hearing (JCIH) de EEUU, propone la evaluación audiológica precoz de los niños que nacen con determinados “factores de riesgo” (FR), al comprobarse que asocian hipoacusia con mayor frecuencia. Tras hacerse realidad el cribado auditivo universal, se sigue indicando la conveniencia de un seguimiento de los recién nacidos (RN) con FR de hipoacusia permanente posnatal o de inicio tardío (HPP).
 Material y métodos: Tras aplicar durante 25 años un programa de cribado auditivo neonatal, en el Hospital Clínico Universitario (HCU) de Valladolid (España), hemos analizado la incidencia de los FR y el rendimiento obtenido con el seguimiento de los niños que presentaban FR de hipoacusia tardía al nacimiento.
 Resultados: De los 27.649 RN evaluados, detectamos un 0,25 por mil de HPP, que representa el 8% de las hipoacusias congénitas y el 0,65% de los RN con FR. En nuestro medio, los FR con mayor prevalencia de HPP son, los antecedentes familiares de hipoacusia y la presencia de malformaciones o síndromes que asocian hipoacusia. La HPP es fundamentalmente bilateral, de tipo neurosensorial y en un elevado porcentaje (23%) de grado leve.
 Discusión y Conclusiones: El seguimiento de los factores de riesgo propuestos por el JCIH como indicadores de HPP, no resulta ni eficaz ni económicamente rentable; sin embargo, dada la importancia de la HPP, consideramos que en el momento actual debería mantenerse el de aquellos FR que tengan una prevalencia elevada de hipoacusia y dado que, la mitad de las hipoacusias posnatales no asocian FR, añadir a este seguimiento, la realización de un estudio neonatal de pruebas genéticas de hipoacusia junto al análisis de la presencia de citomegalovirus.

Earlier Intervention for Medically Fragile Pediatric Inpatient Population

Earlier Intervention for Medically Fragile Pediatric Inpatient Population

Prematurity and the Auditory System: Considerations for Audiologists

Prematurity and the Auditory System: Considerations for Audiologists

Risk factors and etiology of childhood hearing loss: a cohort review of 296 subjects

Background: The association between the Joint Committee on Infant Hearing (JCIH) risk factors and etiology of hearing loss (HL) is not studied well in children.Objectives: To clarify the etiologic causes and evaluate the JCIH risk characteristics of children with HL.Methods: A retrospective study of 296 children with HL born between 2009.01 and 2013.12 in Stokholm. Demographic data, family and medical histories, audiologic results, imaging findings, and genetic results were ascertained and analyzed.Results: In 221 with bilateral hearing loss (BHL), family history and neonatal risk indicators were the most common risks (59 each), followed by syndrome related risks. In 75 with unilateral hearing loss (UHL), craniofacial anomaly was the most common risk, followed by family history. Etiology was established in 93 with BHL, in which syndromic HL accounted for 37.2%, chromosomal aberrations for 21.3%, and environmental causes for 19.1%. Etiology was established in 35 with UHL, in which ear malformation accounted for the most (74.3%), followed by environmental causes (14.3%).Conclusions and significance: Childhood HL can be attributed to a variety of causes with an etiology identifiable in 42.5% of BHL and 46.7% of UHL. BHL and UHL have different patterns of JCIH risk exposure and etiology.

Limitations and drawbacks of the hospital-based universal neonatal hearing screening program: First report from the Arabian Peninsula and insights

ObjectivesTo assess the efficacy of the current universal neonatal hearing screening program in a tertiary medical institution in Oman, identify its limitations and drawbacks, and explore their causative factors. MethodsA retrospective review was carried out to analyse the hearing screening of 12,743 live babies born between January 2016 and December 2018. Screen coverage, drop outs, follow up rate, and age at completion of screening, diagnosis, and intervention were analysed. The results were compared with the Joint Committee on Infant Hearing (JCIH) performance quality indices. Prospective questionnaire-based telephonic interviews were then conducted with the parents or caregivers of neonates with hearing loss. Finally, the causes of loss to follow up or delays in hearing screenings, diagnosis, and/or early intervention were studied. ResultsThe true prevalence of hearing loss was 4.0 in 1000. The coverage of first-stage screening was 90% whereas the compliance with the second stage was 88.04%. 22.8% of the patients eventually obtained final diagnostic confirmation. The overall compliance with amplification was 30.2%. The completion ages of primary screening and final confirmation were 7.98 and 17.3 weeks respectively. The importance of hearing screening is well received by parents, but problems related to communication, delays in the appointment system, and inefficient follow up tracking were identified as the main limitations and drawbacks of the program. ConclusionThe coverage of the neonatal hearing screening program had not yet reached the required goal of 95%. The performance indicators also fell below the international benchmark. There is a need to address the identified causative factors. Effective communication and well-maintained tracking systems need to be implemented.

Prevalence of hearing loss among preschool children in Hanoi, Vietnam

Background: Hearing loss in children is a common entity worldwide. This study examined the prevalence of hearing loss among preschool children in Hanoi, Vietnam.Methods: A cross sectional was conducted among pre-schoolers aged 2-5 years in Hanoi, Vietnam to determine the prevalence of hearing loss according to the method recommended by the Joint Committee on Infant Hearing (JCIH): a two-step Automated Oto-Acoustic Emissions (AOAE) program, completed by an Auditory Brainstem Response (ABR) for the positive diagnosis of hearing impairment.Results: In total, there were 7,191 preschoolers and kindergarten screened. Three hundred and thirty-seven (4.7%) of children screened failed and were referred for further testing. The percentage of children with true hearing loss was 4.4% confirmed by ABR test. Majority of the hearing loss children was conductive hearing loss (70.4%). Mild hearing loss (21–≤40 dB) accounted for almost half of the children with hearing loss.Conclusions: This study provides the first estimates of audiometrically measured hearing loss prevalence among preschool children in Hanoi, Vietnam. The study found that hearing loss is common among pre-primary school children in the country. Routine hearing screening of school-age children should be included in annual school health programs in Vietnam.

Meeting the Joint Committee on Infant Hearing Standards in a Large Metropolitan Children's Hospital: Barriers and Next Steps.

Purpose The aim of this study was to determine how a large metropolitan children's hospital's practices align with the Joint Committee on Infant Hearing (JCIH) 1-3-6 guidelines (diagnose hearing loss by 3 months of age, fitted with hearing aids within 1 month of diagnosis, and enroll in early intervention by 6 months of age) and examine variables that have impacted meeting these guidelines. This hospital is not a birthing hospital. Therefore, the first recommendation (hearing screen by 1 month of age) was not evaluated. Method One hundred forty-one auditory evoked potential evaluations for infants under the age of 6 months were reviewed for this study. Data were only gathered for infants identified with a bilateral hearing loss ( n = 34). The following was recorded: degree of hearing loss, number of diagnostic sessions over time, the percentage of infants who transitioned to hearing aid fittings, and the age at which JCIH benchmarks were accomplished. Results Sixty-two percent of infants were diagnosed with hearing loss by 3 months of age, 48% of infants were fitted with hearing aids by 4 months of age, and the average age of infants enrolled in early intervention was 4.58 months. Seventy percent of infants were fitted within 1 month of the diagnosis of hearing loss. The identified variables that led to the hearing aids being fitted greater than 1 month after the diagnosis are as follows: cancellations/missed appointments, middle ear involvement, and mild hearing loss. Conclusions Results of this internal audit revealed opportunities for growth in better meeting and exceeding JCIH recommendations of diagnosis by 3 months of age and hearing aid fitting within 1 month of diagnosis. Adjustments in the scheduling process and appointment options have been implemented in response to these results. Additional examination of why these recommendations are not being met and what can be done to achieve them is needed.

An Analysis of Risk Factors in Unilateral Versus Bilateral Hearing Loss.

A retrospective review of children with confirmed hearing loss identified through universal newborn hearing screening (UNHS) in Virginia from 2010 to 2014 was conducted in order to compare the incidence of Joint Committee on Infant Hearing (JCIH) risk factors in children with unilateral hearing loss (UHL) to bilateral hearing loss (BHL). Over the 5-year study period, 1004 children (0.20% of all births) developed a confirmed hearing loss, with 544 (51%) children having at least one JCIH risk factor. Overall, 18% of children with confirmed hearing loss initially passed UNHS. Of all children with risk factors, 226 (42%) demonstrated UHL and 318 (58%) had BHL. The most common risk factors for UHL were neonatal indicators (69%), craniofacial anomalies (30%), stigmata of HL syndromes (14%), and family history (14%). The most common risk factors in BHL were neonatal indicators (49%), family history (27%), stigmata of HL syndromes (19%), and craniofacial anomalies (16%). Children with the risk factor for positive family history were more likely to have BHL, while those with craniofacial anomalies were more likely to have UHL (P < .001). Neonatal indicators were the most commonly identified risk factor in both UHL and BHL populations. Children with UHL were significantly more likely to have craniofacial anomalies, while children with BHL were more likely to have a family history of hearing loss. Further studies assessing the etiology underlying the hearing loss and risk factor associations are warranted.

The hearing screening experiences and practices of primary health care nurses: Indications for referral based on high-risk factors and community views about hearing loss.

BackgroundIn South Africa, primary health care is the first point of contact with the health system for at least 85% of the population, yet early hearing detection and intervention continues to be elusive in these settings. Nurses at community level may, therefore, be missing an opportunity to identify prelingual infants with hearing losses and alter their developmental trajectory.AimTo determine primary health care nurses’ experiences, practices and beliefs regarding hearing loss in infants.SettingThe study was conducted in the eThekwini District of KwaZulu-Natal, South Africa.MethodsA descriptive survey was used with quantitative methods of analysis. Fourteen primary health care clinics from the eThekwini district were selected, from which 75 nurses participated by completing a self-administered questionnaire.ResultsAt least one-third of primary health care nurses had never screened a child for hearing loss, and most clinics did not have access to basic hearing screening equipment or materials. Only 49% of nurses had access to an otoscope, while 31% used the Road to Health Development screener to check for hearing loss. None of the clinics had access to an otoacoustic emission screener nor the Swart questionnaire. Although nurses reported that they would refer to audiology services for some of the risk factors, as indicated on the Joint Committee on Infant Hearing (JCIH) 2007 list, they were less likely to refer if the child was in a neonatal intensive care unit (ICU) longer than five days, had neurodegenerative disorders, meningitis, hyperbilirubinaemia requiring blood transfusion or were undergoing chemotherapy. Less than a third of nurses always referred if the child displayed additional non-JCIH risk factors or those pertinent to the South African context. Approximately 38% reported that communities believed that hearing loss could be because of some form of spiritual or supernatural causes.ConclusionThis study demonstrates that hearing screening and referral practices at primary health care clinics need to be strengthened. Nurses need to be capacitated to conduct basic screening, make necessary referrals, provide information to caregivers and understand community beliefs about hearing loss in order to counsel caregivers appropriately and facilitate the process of early hearing detection and intervention.

Analysis of risk factors associated with unilateral hearing loss in children who initially passed newborn hearing screening

ObjectiveTo analyze 2007 Joint Committee on Infant Hearing (JCIH) risk factors in children with confirmed unilateral hearing loss (UHL) who initially passed newborn hearing screening. MethodsRetrospective record review of 16,108 infants who passed newborn hearing screening but had one or more JCIH risk factors prompting subsequent follow-up through the universal newborn hearing screening (UNHS) program in Virginia from 2010 to 2012. The study was reviewed and qualified as exempt by the Virginia Commonwealth University Institutional Review Board (IRB) and the Virginia Department of Health. ResultsOver the 2-year study period, 14896 (4.9% of total births) children passed UNHS but had the presence of one or more JCIH risk factor. Ultimately, we identified 121 babies from this group with confirmed hearing loss (0.7%), with 48 babies (0.2%) showing UHL. The most common risk factors associated with the development of confirmed UHL after passing the initial screen were neonatal indicators, craniofacial anomalies, family history, and stigmata of syndrome associated with hearing loss. ConclusionNeonatal indicators and craniofacial anomalies were the categories most often found in children with confirmed unilateral hearing loss who initially passed their newborn hearing screen. While neonatal indicators were also the most common associated risk factor in all hearing loss, craniofacial abnormalities are relatively more common in children with UHL who initially passed newborn hearing screening. Further studies assessing the etiology underlying the hearing loss and risk factor associations are warranted.

Audiological screening of high risk infants and prevalence of risk factors

Background: Hearing loss in early life can have deleterious effects on child’s psychosocial, scholastic and social-emotional development. Early identification and timely intervention can provide the child with better speech and language development. This study has been done to estimate the prevalence of hearing impairment among high risk infants as per Joint Committee on Infant Hearing (JCIH) criteria and to study the risk factors associated with neonatal hearing impairment.Methods: This multicentric observational study was conducted among 613 high risk infants admitted and discharged from neonatal intensive care units (NICU) of Academy of Medical Sciences, Kannur, Kerala and Sri Siddhartha Medical College and Research Centre, Tumakuru, Karnataka, India (level III neonatology units with an NICU admissions of average around 1200 per year), during the period August 2015 - August 2016 (12 months). The babies were selected based on the JCIH 2007 criteria. All babies were subjected to behavioral audiometry (BA) and Oto Acoustic Emissions (OAE), preferably within 3 weeks. Those failing OAE were reevaluated at 6th week and with Auditory brain stem response (ABR) within 3 months time. Results: A total of 613 high risk babies were screened. 42 (6.76%) among them were having hearing impairment. The most common risk factors associated with hearing impairment was NICU stay for more than 24 hours, prematurity, low birth weight and meningitis/sepsis etc.Conclusions: Hearing impairment among high risk babies is not a rare condition. In our study, the prevalence was 6.76%. Low birth weight, admission to NICU for more than 24 hours, low APGAR, meningitis/sepsis, maternal and neonatal complications are significant risk factors for hearing impairment among neonates. This highlights the need for neonatal screening. Though we recommend a universal screening program, at least a targeted approach should be practiced in neonatal care. Those babies who are found to have hearing impairment should be closely followed up with early intervention and rehabilitation.

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

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.