双技术新生儿听力筛查的初步研究

Siva Ganesan, MN Anusha, Lakshmanabharathi Ranganathan
{"title":"双技术新生儿听力筛查的初步研究","authors":"Siva Ganesan, MN Anusha, Lakshmanabharathi Ranganathan","doi":"10.4103/jisha.jisha_6_23","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Introduction: Newborn hearing screening is essential for the early identification of hearing loss, which can lead to timely intervention and improved outcomes for affected infants. Two commonly used screening methods are distortion product otoacoustic emissions (DPOAEs) and automated auditory brainstem response (AABR). While both methods are effective, there is still ongoing research to determine which method is more efficient and accurate. The aim is to compare the referral rates of DPOAE and AABR in neonatal hearing screening and to evaluate the efficacy of the two technologies in identifying hearing loss in high-risk and well-born neonates by adhering to the new 1–3-month timeline (Joint Committee on Infant Hearing, 2019). Methods: This was a prospective cross-sectional study conducted on 404 neonates (808 ears) in a multispecialty hospital in Tamil Nadu, India. Neonates with referral criteria for either DPOAE or AABR in the first step were rescreened immediately with the preferred technology. Obtained data were subjected to statistical analysis. Results: Among 404 (100%) neonates screened, 364 (90.14%) were well-born and 40 (9.90%) were high-risk babies. The total referral rate for DPOAE was 70 (8.6%) among which 54 (7.5%) were well-born babies and 16 (20%) were high-risk infants. The total referral rate in AABR was 68 (8.4%) among which 52 (7.2%) were well-born and 16 (20%) were high-risk infants. All the infants enrolled were screened by 1 month and no referrals were obtained for a detailed audiological diagnostic for reaching the 2-month benchmark and intervention by 3 months. Statistical analysis revealed no significant difference between the groups (P > .01). Conclusion: AABR had similar referral rates with DPOAE in neonatal hearing screening. The two-technology screening protocol was effective in identifying hearing loss in high-risk and well-born neonates. The inclusion of AABR in the screening protocol proves utility in detecting retrocochlear pathologies such as auditory neuropathy spectrum disorder (ANSD).","PeriodicalId":484571,"journal":{"name":"Journal of the Indian Speech & Hearing Association","volume":"24 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"A preliminary study on two-technology neonatal hearing screening\",\"authors\":\"Siva Ganesan, MN Anusha, Lakshmanabharathi Ranganathan\",\"doi\":\"10.4103/jisha.jisha_6_23\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Introduction: Newborn hearing screening is essential for the early identification of hearing loss, which can lead to timely intervention and improved outcomes for affected infants. Two commonly used screening methods are distortion product otoacoustic emissions (DPOAEs) and automated auditory brainstem response (AABR). While both methods are effective, there is still ongoing research to determine which method is more efficient and accurate. The aim is to compare the referral rates of DPOAE and AABR in neonatal hearing screening and to evaluate the efficacy of the two technologies in identifying hearing loss in high-risk and well-born neonates by adhering to the new 1–3-month timeline (Joint Committee on Infant Hearing, 2019). Methods: This was a prospective cross-sectional study conducted on 404 neonates (808 ears) in a multispecialty hospital in Tamil Nadu, India. Neonates with referral criteria for either DPOAE or AABR in the first step were rescreened immediately with the preferred technology. Obtained data were subjected to statistical analysis. Results: Among 404 (100%) neonates screened, 364 (90.14%) were well-born and 40 (9.90%) were high-risk babies. The total referral rate for DPOAE was 70 (8.6%) among which 54 (7.5%) were well-born babies and 16 (20%) were high-risk infants. The total referral rate in AABR was 68 (8.4%) among which 52 (7.2%) were well-born and 16 (20%) were high-risk infants. All the infants enrolled were screened by 1 month and no referrals were obtained for a detailed audiological diagnostic for reaching the 2-month benchmark and intervention by 3 months. Statistical analysis revealed no significant difference between the groups (P > .01). Conclusion: AABR had similar referral rates with DPOAE in neonatal hearing screening. The two-technology screening protocol was effective in identifying hearing loss in high-risk and well-born neonates. The inclusion of AABR in the screening protocol proves utility in detecting retrocochlear pathologies such as auditory neuropathy spectrum disorder (ANSD).\",\"PeriodicalId\":484571,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of the Indian Speech & Hearing Association\",\"volume\":\"24 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of the Indian Speech & Hearing Association\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.4103/jisha.jisha_6_23\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of the Indian Speech & Hearing Association","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.4103/jisha.jisha_6_23","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

新生儿听力筛查对于早期识别听力损失至关重要,这可以导致及时干预并改善受影响婴儿的预后。两种常用的筛选方法是畸变产物耳声发射(dpoae)和自动听觉脑干反应(AABR)。虽然两种方法都是有效的,但仍有正在进行的研究来确定哪种方法更有效和准确。目的是比较DPOAE和AABR在新生儿听力筛查中的转诊率,并按照新的1 - 3个月时间表评估这两种技术在识别高危和优质新生儿听力损失方面的疗效(Joint Committee on Infant hearing, 2019)。方法:这是一项前瞻性横断面研究,对印度泰米尔纳德邦一家多专科医院的404名新生儿(808耳)进行了研究。在第一步有DPOAE或AABR转诊标准的新生儿立即用首选技术重新筛选。得到的数据进行统计分析。结果:404例(100%)新生儿中,优生儿364例(90.14%),高危儿40例(9.90%)。DPOAE的总转诊率为70例(8.6%),其中54例(7.5%)为优生儿,16例(20%)为高危儿。AABR患儿总转诊率为68例(8.4%),其中优生儿52例(7.2%),高危儿16例(20%)。所有入组的婴儿在1个月时进行筛查,没有获得详细的听力学诊断以达到2个月的基准和3个月的干预。经统计学分析,各组间差异无统计学意义(P > 0.01)。结论:AABR与DPOAE在新生儿听力筛查中的转诊率相近。两种技术筛选方案在识别听力损失高风险和良好出生的新生儿是有效的。在筛选方案中纳入AABR证明了在检测耳蜗后病变(如听神经病变谱障碍(ANSD))方面的效用。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
A preliminary study on two-technology neonatal hearing screening
Introduction: Newborn hearing screening is essential for the early identification of hearing loss, which can lead to timely intervention and improved outcomes for affected infants. Two commonly used screening methods are distortion product otoacoustic emissions (DPOAEs) and automated auditory brainstem response (AABR). While both methods are effective, there is still ongoing research to determine which method is more efficient and accurate. The aim is to compare the referral rates of DPOAE and AABR in neonatal hearing screening and to evaluate the efficacy of the two technologies in identifying hearing loss in high-risk and well-born neonates by adhering to the new 1–3-month timeline (Joint Committee on Infant Hearing, 2019). Methods: This was a prospective cross-sectional study conducted on 404 neonates (808 ears) in a multispecialty hospital in Tamil Nadu, India. Neonates with referral criteria for either DPOAE or AABR in the first step were rescreened immediately with the preferred technology. Obtained data were subjected to statistical analysis. Results: Among 404 (100%) neonates screened, 364 (90.14%) were well-born and 40 (9.90%) were high-risk babies. The total referral rate for DPOAE was 70 (8.6%) among which 54 (7.5%) were well-born babies and 16 (20%) were high-risk infants. The total referral rate in AABR was 68 (8.4%) among which 52 (7.2%) were well-born and 16 (20%) were high-risk infants. All the infants enrolled were screened by 1 month and no referrals were obtained for a detailed audiological diagnostic for reaching the 2-month benchmark and intervention by 3 months. Statistical analysis revealed no significant difference between the groups (P > .01). Conclusion: AABR had similar referral rates with DPOAE in neonatal hearing screening. The two-technology screening protocol was effective in identifying hearing loss in high-risk and well-born neonates. The inclusion of AABR in the screening protocol proves utility in detecting retrocochlear pathologies such as auditory neuropathy spectrum disorder (ANSD).
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
An investigation into the vowel space area and vowel intelligibility among English-speaking children with cochlear implant in India Exploring effects of service model and the age of intervention on cochlear implant outcomes Survey on knowledge and attitudes toward hearing loss and assistive listening technology among educational professionals A preliminary study on two-technology neonatal hearing screening Awareness and knowledge of health science professionals on the role of speech-language pathologists in stroke rehabilitation
×
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