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
. 2021 May 14:9:655625.
doi: 10.3389/fped.2021.655625. eCollection 2021.

Comparison of Two-Step Transient Evoked Otoacoustic Emissions and One-Step Automated Auditory Brainstem Response for Universal Newborn Hearing Screening Programs in Remote Areas of China

Haibin Sheng  1   2   3 , Qian Zhou  1   2   3 , Qixuan Wang  1   2   3 , Yun Yu  4 , Lihua Liu  4 , Meie Liang  4 , Xueyan Zhou  4 , Hao Wu  1   2   3 , Xiangrong Tang  4 , Zhiwu Huang  1   2   3
Affiliations

Comparison of Two-Step Transient Evoked Otoacoustic Emissions and One-Step Automated Auditory Brainstem Response for Universal Newborn Hearing Screening Programs in Remote Areas of China

Haibin Sheng et al. Front Pediatr. .

Abstract

Objective: To compare the hearing screening results of two-step transient evoked otoacoustic emissions (TEOAE) and one-step automatic auditory brainstem response (AABR) in non-risk newborns, and to explore a more suitable hearing screening protocol for infants discharged within 48 h after birth in remote areas of China. Methods: To analyze the age effect on pass rate for hearing screening, 2005 newborns were divided into three groups according to screening time after birth: <24, 24-48, and 48-72 h. All subjects received TEOAE + AABR test as first hearing screen, and those who failed in any test were rescreened with TEOAE + AABR at 6 weeks after birth. The first screening results of AABR and TEOAE were compared among the three groups. The results of two-step TEOAE screening and one-step AABR screening were compared for newborns who were discharged within 48 h. The time spent on screening was recorded for TEOAE and AABR. Results: The pass rate of TEOAE and AABR increased significantly with the increase of first screening time (P < 0.05), and the false positive rate decreased significantly with the increase of first screening time (P < 0.05). The failure rate of first screening of AABR within 48 h was 7.31%, which was significantly lower than that of TEOAE (9.93%) (P < 0.05). The average time spent on AABR was 12.51 ± 6.36 min, which was significantly higher than that of TEOAE (4.05 ± 1.56 min, P < 0.05). The failure rate of TEOAE two-step screening was 1.59%, which was significantly lower than one-step AABR. Conclusions: Compared with TEOAE, AABR screening within 48 h after birth can reduce the failure rate and false positive rate of first screening. However, compared with TEOAE two-step screening, one-step AABR screening has higher referral rate for audiological diagnosis. In remote areas of China, especially in hospitals with high delivery rate, one-step AABR screening is not feasible, and two-step TEOAE screening protocol is still applicable to UNHS screening as more and more infants discharged within 48 h after birth.

Keywords: automated auditory brainstem response; developing countries; neonatal hearing screening; otoacoustic emissions; screening time.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Screening protocol.
Figure 2
Figure 2
The average testing time of TEOAE and AABR. Error bars indicate one standard deviation (***p < 0.001, Paired T-test).
See this image and copyright information in PMC

Similar articles

See all similar articles

Cited by

References

    1. Magdalena L, Paulina S, Krzysztof M, Katarzyna P, Kazimierz N. Second stage of universal neonatal hearing screening - a way for diagnosis and beginning of proper treatment for infants with hearing loss. Adv Med Sci. (2014) 59:90–4. 10.1016/j.advms.2014.02.002 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Ngui LX, Tang IP, Prepageran N, Lai ZW. Comparison of distortion product otoacoustic emission (DPOAE) and automated auditory brainstem response (AABR) for neonatal hearing screening in a hospital with high delivery rate. Int J Pediatr Otorhinolaryngol. (2019) 120:184–8. 10.1016/j.ijporl.2019.02.045 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Downs MP, Sterritt GM. A guide to newborn and infant hearing screening programs. Arch. Otolaryngol. (1967) 85:15–22. 10.1001/archotol.1967.00760040017006 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Joint Committee on Infant Hearing . Position statement. ASHA. (1994) 36:38–41. - PubMed
    1. Joint Committee on Infant Hearing . Year 2007 position statement: principles and guidelines for early hearing detection and intervention programs. Pediatrics. (2007) 120:898–921. 10.1542/peds.2007-2333 - DOI - PubMed

LinkOut - more resources