Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2016 Apr-Jun;20(2):104-109.

Transitory evoked otoacoustic emission (TEOAE) and distortion product otoacoustic emission (DPOAE) outcomes from a three-stage newborn hearing screening protocol

Affiliations

Transitory evoked otoacoustic emission (TEOAE) and distortion product otoacoustic emission (DPOAE) outcomes from a three-stage newborn hearing screening protocol

M G Tzanakakis et al. Hippokratia. 2016 Apr-Jun.

Abstract

Objective: Comparison of the efficacy of Transitory Evoked Otoacoustic Emissions (TEOAEs) and Distortion Product Otoacoustic Emissions (DPOAEs) in a neonatal hearing screening protocol, based on a three-stage strategy.

Methods: In the first stage, a hearing screening using both evoked emissions was conducted in 3,480 neonates from March 2006 through January 2012. Both TEOAEs and DPOAEs were recorded. Neonates, who did not undergo the test before being discharged, were examined within 30 days at a scheduled appointment. Follow-up of the referred newborns (second-stage screening) was performed as an outpatient re-screening, within a month. The third-stage evaluation, i.e., the diagnostic testing, included a clinical otolaryngological examination, high-frequency tympanometry at 1,000 Hz and Auditory Brainstem Response (ABR) measurements.

Results: A total of 3,480 (97%) newborns (n =1,765 males) out of 3,595 infants were enrolled in the study. In the first-stage evaluation, 8.9 % of the infants were referred according to TEOAEs, while the percentage of the referred infants for DPΟΑΕs was 25.7 %. At this initial assessment stage, the specificity of TEOAES and DPOAEs were determined as 92% and 75%, while positive predictive values (PPV) were 3.8 % and 1.3 %, respectively. In the second stage of evaluation, the specificity of TEOAES and DPOAEs were 86 % and 76 %, while the PPV increased to 18 % and 15 %, respectively.

Conclusions: With a lower follow-up rate, TEOAEs testing was significantly easier to perform and more reliable compared to the DPOAEs test. Hippokratia 2016, 20(2): 104-109.

Keywords: Newborn hearing screening; distortion product otoacoustic emissions; hearing loss; transient evoked otoacoustic emissions.

PubMed Disclaimer

Similar articles

Cited by

References

    1. Harlor AD Jr, Bower C. Committee on Practice and Ambulatory Medicine; Section on Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery. Hearing assessment in infants and children: recommendations beyond neonatal screening. Pediatrics. 2009;124:1252–1263. - PubMed
    1. Vos B, Senterre C, Lagasse R, SurdiScreen Group, Levêque A. Newborn hearing screening programme in Belgium: a consensus recommendation on risk factors. BMC Pediatr. 2015;15:160. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Yoshinaga-Itano C. Levels of evidence: universal newborn hearing screening (UNHS) and early hearing detection and intervention systems (EHDI) J Commun Disord. 2004;37:451–465. - PubMed
    1. American Academy of Pediatrics, Joint Committee on Infant Hearing. Year 2007 position statement: Principles and guidelines for early hearing detection and intervention programs. Pediatrics. 2007;120:898–921. - PubMed
    1. Kenna MA. Neonatal hearing screening. Pediatr Clin North Am. 2003;50:301–313. - PubMed

LinkOut - more resources