File Download

There are no files associated with this item.

  Links for fulltext
     (May Require Subscription)
Supplementary

Article: Infant hearing screening: Effects of timeline

TitleInfant hearing screening: Effects of timeline
Authors
Issue Date2008
PublisherBlackwell Publishing Ltd. The Journal's web site is located at http://www.blackwellpublishing.com/journals/COA
Citation
Clinical Otolaryngology, 2008, v. 33 n. 2, p. 108-112 How to Cite?
AbstractObjectives: Universal infant hearing screening using otoacoustic emission and auditory brain-stem response audiometry is widely administered to attain the goals of early identification of, and intervention for hearing impairment. Concerns regarding screening specificity have, however, been raised. False positives may result from vernix occlusion in the ear canal or transient middle ear effusion, and can result in substantial costs to health care systems. The current study investigates the effects of age and time interval between tests on hearing assessment results. Setting & participants: Three hundred and seventeen positive screens from a 2-stage distortion product otoacoustic emission (DPOAE) screening programme in Hong Kong, who subsequently received diagnostic auditory brainstem response (ABR) assessment and monitoring, were investigated. Main outcome measures: Differences in diagnostic ABR results were compared among infants of different ages at tests, and with different time lapses after DPOAE screening. The proportion of those having persistent hearing impairment, conductive loss and impairment of moderate degree or above, were also compared. Results: A significantly higher rate of normal ABR thresholds (60% versus 24%) was noted in infants assessed after age 50 days, and in infants diagnostically assessed with a time lapse of over 20 days post-DPOAE screening (65% versus 42%). Conclusions: Delaying diagnostic ABR assessment may reveal a higher percentage of normal thresholds, and hence probably higher specificity. Time delay may allow for spontaneous resolution of transient outer and middle ear conditions. However, the goals of early identification and intervention, as well as possible parental anxiety with delayed assessment, should also be considered when reviewing infant hearing screening schedules. © 2008 The Authors.
Persistent Identifierhttp://hdl.handle.net/10722/175298
ISSN
2015 Impact Factor: 2.627
2015 SCImago Journal Rankings: 0.816
ISI Accession Number ID
References

 

DC FieldValueLanguage
dc.contributor.authorTsui, PWYen_US
dc.contributor.authorMcpherson, Ben_US
dc.contributor.authorWong, ECMen_US
dc.contributor.authorNg, IHYen_US
dc.date.accessioned2012-11-26T08:58:02Z-
dc.date.available2012-11-26T08:58:02Z-
dc.date.issued2008en_US
dc.identifier.citationClinical Otolaryngology, 2008, v. 33 n. 2, p. 108-112en_US
dc.identifier.issn1749-4478en_US
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10722/175298-
dc.description.abstractObjectives: Universal infant hearing screening using otoacoustic emission and auditory brain-stem response audiometry is widely administered to attain the goals of early identification of, and intervention for hearing impairment. Concerns regarding screening specificity have, however, been raised. False positives may result from vernix occlusion in the ear canal or transient middle ear effusion, and can result in substantial costs to health care systems. The current study investigates the effects of age and time interval between tests on hearing assessment results. Setting & participants: Three hundred and seventeen positive screens from a 2-stage distortion product otoacoustic emission (DPOAE) screening programme in Hong Kong, who subsequently received diagnostic auditory brainstem response (ABR) assessment and monitoring, were investigated. Main outcome measures: Differences in diagnostic ABR results were compared among infants of different ages at tests, and with different time lapses after DPOAE screening. The proportion of those having persistent hearing impairment, conductive loss and impairment of moderate degree or above, were also compared. Results: A significantly higher rate of normal ABR thresholds (60% versus 24%) was noted in infants assessed after age 50 days, and in infants diagnostically assessed with a time lapse of over 20 days post-DPOAE screening (65% versus 42%). Conclusions: Delaying diagnostic ABR assessment may reveal a higher percentage of normal thresholds, and hence probably higher specificity. Time delay may allow for spontaneous resolution of transient outer and middle ear conditions. However, the goals of early identification and intervention, as well as possible parental anxiety with delayed assessment, should also be considered when reviewing infant hearing screening schedules. © 2008 The Authors.en_US
dc.languageengen_US
dc.publisherBlackwell Publishing Ltd. The Journal's web site is located at http://www.blackwellpublishing.com/journals/COAen_US
dc.relation.ispartofClinical Otolaryngologyen_US
dc.subject.meshAge Factorsen_US
dc.subject.meshAuditory Threshold - Physiologyen_US
dc.subject.meshCost-Benefit Analysisen_US
dc.subject.meshEar, Externalen_US
dc.subject.meshEar, Middleen_US
dc.subject.meshEvoked Potentials, Auditory, Brain Stem - Physiologyen_US
dc.subject.meshFemaleen_US
dc.subject.meshHearing Disorders - Diagnosis - Economics - Epidemiologyen_US
dc.subject.meshHumansen_US
dc.subject.meshInfanten_US
dc.subject.meshInfant, Newbornen_US
dc.subject.meshMaleen_US
dc.subject.meshNeonatal Screening - Economics - Methodsen_US
dc.subject.meshOtoacoustic Emissions, Spontaneous - Physiologyen_US
dc.subject.meshRetrospective Studiesen_US
dc.titleInfant hearing screening: Effects of timelineen_US
dc.typeArticleen_US
dc.identifier.emailMcPherson, B: dbmcpher@hkucc.hku.hken_US
dc.identifier.authorityMcPherson, B=rp00937en_US
dc.description.naturelink_to_subscribed_fulltexten_US
dc.identifier.doi10.1111/j.1749-4486.2008.01663.xen_US
dc.identifier.pmid18429859-
dc.identifier.scopuseid_2-s2.0-42449154234en_US
dc.relation.referenceshttp://www.scopus.com/mlt/select.url?eid=2-s2.0-42449154234&selection=ref&src=s&origin=recordpageen_US
dc.identifier.volume33en_US
dc.identifier.issue2en_US
dc.identifier.spage108en_US
dc.identifier.epage112en_US
dc.identifier.isiWOS:000255136400005-
dc.publisher.placeUnited Kingdomen_US
dc.identifier.scopusauthoridTsui, PWY=24077292200en_US
dc.identifier.scopusauthoridMcPherson, B=7006800770en_US
dc.identifier.scopusauthoridWong, ECM=7403161535en_US
dc.identifier.scopusauthoridNg, IHY=36829683900en_US
dc.identifier.citeulike2698000-

Export via OAI-PMH Interface in XML Formats


OR


Export to Other Non-XML Formats