Reducing false positives in newborn hearing screening program: How and why

被引:45
|
作者
Lin, Hung-Ching
Shu, Min-Tsan
Lee, Kuo-Sheng
Lin, Huang-Yu
Lin, Grace
机构
[1] Department of Otolaryngology, Hearing and Speech Center, Mackay Memorial Hospital, Taipei
[2] Department of Speech Language Pathology and Hearing, Chung Shan Medical University, Taichung
[3] Department of Speech and Hearing Disorders and Sciences, National Taipei College of Nursing, Taipei
[4] Children's Hearing Foundation, Taipei
[5] Department of Otolaryngology, Mackay Memorial Hospital, Taipei 104, No. 92 Chung-Shan N Road
关键词
AABR; automatic auditory brainstem response; congenital deafness; TEOAE; transient evoked otoacoustic emission; UNHS; universal newborn hearing screening;
D O I
10.1097/MAO.0b013e3180cab754
中图分类号
R74 [神经病学与精神病学];
学科分类号
摘要
Objective: 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. Study Design: 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. Results: 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. Conclusion: 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.
引用
收藏
页码:788 / 792
页数:5
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [1] Minimizing false-positives in universal newborn hearing screening program
    Srinivasan, HB
    Srinivasan, G
    Lotke, M
    PEDIATRIC RESEARCH, 2004, 55 (04) : 593A - 593A
  • [2] Reducing false positives in newborn screening for lysosomal disorders
    Washburn, Jon
    Brannen, Candice
    Bhattacharjee, Arindam
    MOLECULAR GENETICS AND METABOLISM, 2020, 129 (02) : S160 - S160
  • [3] Minimizing false-positives in universal newborn hearing screening: A simple solution
    Clemens, CJ
    Davis, SA
    PEDIATRICS, 2001, 107 (03) : E29
  • [4] False positives in universal neonatal screening for permanent childhood hearing impairment
    Kennedy, C
    Kimm, L
    Thornton, R
    Davis, A
    LANCET, 2000, 356 (9245): : 1903 - 1904
  • [5] Outpatient Newborn Hearing Screening Program
    Giangregorio, Nicole
    JOGNN-JOURNAL OF OBSTETRIC GYNECOLOGIC AND NEONATAL NURSING, 2012, 41 : S55 - S55
  • [6] Evaluation of newborn hearing screening program
    Alves Marinho, Ana Carolina
    de Souza Pereira, Edirlene Cordeiro
    Costa Torres, Kleyse Kerlyne
    Miranda, Andreza Monforte
    Losno Ledesma, Alleluia Lima
    REVISTA DE SAUDE PUBLICA, 2020, 54
  • [7] Newborn Hearing Screening Program.
    Sukumaran T.U.
    Indian Pediatrics, 2011, 48 (5) : 351 - 353
  • [8] WHY FORGET THE FALSE POSITIVES
    TYLER, P
    EASTMOND, K
    DAVIES, J
    BRITISH JOURNAL OF CLINICAL PSYCHOLOGY, 1989, 28 : 377 - 378
  • [9] Why parents refuse newborn hearing screening?
    Joob, Beuy
    Wiwaniitkt, Viroj
    INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF PEDIATRIC OTORHINOLARYNGOLOGY, 2014, 78 (07) : 1198 - 1198
  • [10] The false-positive in universal newborn hearing screening
    Clemens, CJ
    Davis, SA
    Bailey, AR
    PEDIATRICS, 2000, 106 (01) : E7