Identification of oral clefts as a risk factor for hearing loss during newborn hearing screening.

Patricia L Purcell, Kathleen Cy Sie, Todd C Edwards, Debra Lochner Doyle, Karin Neidt
{"title":"Identification of oral clefts as a risk factor for hearing loss during newborn hearing screening.","authors":"Patricia L Purcell,&nbsp;Kathleen Cy Sie,&nbsp;Todd C Edwards,&nbsp;Debra Lochner Doyle,&nbsp;Karin Neidt","doi":"","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>This study assessed whether children with oral clefts are appropriately classified as at-risk for hearing loss at the time of newborn hearing screening and describes their screening and diagnostic results.</p><p><strong>Design: </strong>Birth certificates were used to identify children with cleft lip and palate or isolated cleft palate born in Washington State from 2008-2013. These were cross-referenced with the state's Early Hearing Detection, Diagnosis and Intervention (EHDDI) database. Multivariate logistic regression was used to examine associations.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Birth records identified 235 children with cleft lip and palate and 116 with isolated cleft palate. Six children were listed as having both diagnoses. Only 138 (39%) of these children were designated as having a craniofacial anomaly in the EHDDI database. Children who were misclassified were less likely to have referred on initial hearing screening, OR 0.3, 95% CI [0.2, 0.5]. Misclassification of risk factor status was also associated with delayed hearing screening past 30 days of age or unknown age at screening, OR 4.4, 95% CI [1.5, 13.3], p-value 0.008. Of 50 children with diagnostic results; 25 (50%) had hearing loss: 18 conductive, 2 mixed, and 5 unspecified.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>A majority of children with oral clefts were misclassified regarding risk factor for hearing loss in the EHDDI database.</p>","PeriodicalId":91737,"journal":{"name":"Journal of early hearing detection and intervention","volume":"3 1","pages":"21-28"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2018-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6002157/pdf/nihms947881.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of early hearing detection and intervention","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objective: This study assessed whether children with oral clefts are appropriately classified as at-risk for hearing loss at the time of newborn hearing screening and describes their screening and diagnostic results.

Design: Birth certificates were used to identify children with cleft lip and palate or isolated cleft palate born in Washington State from 2008-2013. These were cross-referenced with the state's Early Hearing Detection, Diagnosis and Intervention (EHDDI) database. Multivariate logistic regression was used to examine associations.

Results: Birth records identified 235 children with cleft lip and palate and 116 with isolated cleft palate. Six children were listed as having both diagnoses. Only 138 (39%) of these children were designated as having a craniofacial anomaly in the EHDDI database. Children who were misclassified were less likely to have referred on initial hearing screening, OR 0.3, 95% CI [0.2, 0.5]. Misclassification of risk factor status was also associated with delayed hearing screening past 30 days of age or unknown age at screening, OR 4.4, 95% CI [1.5, 13.3], p-value 0.008. Of 50 children with diagnostic results; 25 (50%) had hearing loss: 18 conductive, 2 mixed, and 5 unspecified.

Conclusion: A majority of children with oral clefts were misclassified regarding risk factor for hearing loss in the EHDDI database.

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
在新生儿听力筛查中识别唇腭裂作为听力损失的危险因素。
目的:本研究评估唇腭裂患儿在新生儿听力筛查时是否被恰当地划分为听力损失高危人群,并描述其筛查和诊断结果。设计:出生证明用于识别2008-2013年在华盛顿州出生的唇腭裂或孤立性腭裂儿童。这些数据与该州的早期听力检测、诊断和干预(EHDDI)数据库进行了交叉参考。多变量逻辑回归用于检验相关性。结果:出生记录确定唇腭裂患儿235例,孤立性腭裂患儿116例。6名儿童被列为同时患有这两种诊断。这些儿童中只有138人(39%)在EHDDI数据库中被指定为颅面异常。被错误分类的儿童不太可能进行初步听力筛查,OR 0.3, 95% CI[0.2, 0.5]。危险因素状态的错误分类也与年龄超过30天的听力筛查延迟或筛查时年龄未知有关,or 4.4, 95% CI [1.5, 13.3], p值0.008。有诊断结果的50名儿童;25例(50%)有听力损失:18例传导性,2例混合性,5例不明原因。结论:在EHDDI数据库中,大多数唇腭裂儿童的听力损失危险因素被错误分类。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
审稿时长
16 weeks
期刊最新文献
Early Experiences of Parents of Children who are Deaf or Hard of Hearing: Navigating through Identification, Intervention, and Beyond. Assessing Impact of COVID-19 Pandemic on Receipt and Timeliness of Newborn Hearing Screening and Diagnostic Services Among Infants Born in Four States. Likely Impact of the COVID-19 Pandemic on Newborn Hearing Screening and Follow-up Services in the United States in 2020. Language Growth in Children with Mild to Severe Hearing Loss who Received Early Intervention by 3 Months or 6 Months of Age. Visual Reinforcers Designed for Children with Developmental Disabilities.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1