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
  • [31] Potential pitfalls of initiating a newborn hearing screening program
    Kanne, TJ
    Schaefer, L
    Perkins, JA
    ARCHIVES OF OTOLARYNGOLOGY-HEAD & NECK SURGERY, 1999, 125 (01) : 28 - 32
  • [32] Reducing False Positives in the Construction of Adjective Scales
    Zhang, Alice
    PROCEEDINGS OF THE SEVENTH GLOBAL WORDNET CONFERENCE, GWC 2014, 2014, : 372 - 377
  • [33] The successful incorporation of volunteers into a newborn hearing screening program
    Sturges, E
    Stewart, J
    Marcarelli, K
    Waite, L
    Dempesy, D
    Saccocia, E
    Khan, S
    Haggerty, C
    PEDIATRIC RESEARCH, 1999, 45 (04) : 256A - 256A
  • [34] Evaluation of the Universal Newborn Hearing Screening and Intervention Program
    Shulman, Shanna
    Besculides, Melanie
    Saltzman, Anna
    Ireys, Henry
    White, Karl R.
    Forsman, Irene
    PEDIATRICS, 2010, 126 : S19 - S27
  • [35] Results of American Hospital newborn hearing screening program
    Kayiran, Sinan Mahir
    Genc, Erkhan
    Erdil, Aysen
    Gurakan, Berkan A.
    TURK PEDIATRI ARSIVI-TURKISH ARCHIVES OF PEDIATRICS, 2009, 44 (04): : 135 - 137
  • [36] The universal newborn hearing screening program of Taipei City
    Huang, Hung-Meng
    Chiang, Szu-Hui
    Shiau, Yu-Shih
    Yeh, Wen-Ying
    Ho, Hui Chen
    Wang, Lilly
    Chen, Shou-Chen
    Lin, Hung-Ching
    Chen, Kwang-Chao
    Chiang, Hung
    Yang, Ming-Chuan
    Yu, Li-Hui
    Lin, Hsiu-Lian
    Chiu, Allen Wen-Hsiang
    Hsiao, Kwang-Jen
    INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF PEDIATRIC OTORHINOLARYNGOLOGY, 2013, 77 (10) : 1734 - 1737
  • [37] The Successful Incorporation of Volunteers into a Newborn Hearing Screening Program
    Elizabeth Sturges
    Jane Stewart
    Karen Marcarelli
    Lara Waite
    Deborah Dempesy
    Elizabeth Saccocia
    Samina Khan
    Cathleen Haggerty
    Pediatric Research, 1999, 45 : 256 - 256
  • [38] Erasure Analyses: Reducing the Number of False Positives
    McClintock, Joseph Clair
    APPLIED MEASUREMENT IN EDUCATION, 2015, 28 (01) : 14 - 32
  • [39] Why parents refuse newborn hearing screening in South Africa?
    Swanepoel, De Wet
    Cheepers, Lucia
    le Roux, Talita
    INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF PEDIATRIC OTORHINOLARYNGOLOGY, 2014, 78 (07) : 1197 - 1198
  • [40] Evaluation of The Effectiveness of Newborn Hearing Screening Program: A Center in Turkey
    Turan, Zerrin
    Bas, Nagihan
    INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF EARLY CHILDHOOD SPECIAL EDUCATION, 2019, 11 (02) : 141 - 153