The Effect of Different ‘Pass-Fail’ Criteria on the Results of a Newborn Hearing Screening Program

Revisiting the transient-evoked otoacoustic emissions passing criteria used for newborn hearing screening

OBJECTIVE

To assess transient-evoked otoacoustic emissions (TEOAE) data from 15 years of a newborn hearing screening program and evaluate how well various criteria separate ears with and without hearing loss.

DESIGN

Retrospective review of TEOAE data using logistic regression, receiver operating characteristic curves, and cumulative percentage graphs.Study sample: Children with hearing loss who passed TEOAE screening as a newborn were compared to children who failed TEOAE screening and normal hearing children who either passed or failed. Exclusions were applied for acquired hearing loss or auditory neuropathy.

RESULTS

Ears with hearing loss that passed screening had significantly lower TEOAE response levels compared to ears with normal hearing. Noise levels, test times, and number of sweeps were also lower. Most of these ears had mild hearing loss. Logistic regression results showed that high-frequency TEOAE response level is the best predictor of hearing loss. A multivariate "logit" score calculated from the regression was the best indicator for separating ears with hearing loss from ears with normal hearing.

CONCLUSIONS

TEOAE response levels or an algorithm which incorporates logit scores should be considered as a minimum passing criterion to increase the sensitivity of the TEOAE screening.

Protocol and programme factors associated with referral and loss to follow-up from newborn hearing screening: a systematic review

Background

An effective newborn hearing screening programme has low referral rate and low loss to follow-up (LTFU) rate after referral from initial screening. This systematic review identified studies evaluating the effect of protocol and programme factors on these two outcomes, including the screening method used and the infant group.

Methods

Five databases were searched (latest: April 2021). Included studies reported original data from newborn hearing screening and described the target outcomes against a protocol or programme level factor. Studies were excluded if results were only available for one risk condition, for each ear, or for < 100 infants, or if methodological bias was observed. Included studies were evaluated for quality across three domains: sample, screening and outcome, using modified criteria from the Ottawa-Newcastle and QUADAS-2 scales. Findings from the included studies were synthesised in tables, figures and text.

Results

Fifty-eight studies reported on referral rate, 8 on LTFU rate, and 35 on both. Only 15 studies defined LTFU. Substantial diversity in referral and LTFU rate was observed across studies. Twelve of fourteen studies that evaluated screening method showed lower referral rates with aABR compared to TEOAE for well babies (WB). Rescreening before hospital discharge and screening after 3 days of age reduced referral rates. Studies investigating LTFU reported lower rates for programmes that had audiologist involvement, did not require fees for step 2, were embedded in a larger regional or national programme, and scheduled follow-up in a location accessible to the families. In programmes with low overall LTFU, higher LTFU was observed for infants from the NICU compared to WB.

Conclusion

Although poor reporting and exclusion of non-English articles may limit the generalisability from this review, key influential factors for referral and LTFU rates were identified. Including aABR in WB screening can effectively reduce referral rates, but it is not the only solution. The reported referral and LTFU rates vary largely across studies, implying the contribution of several parameters identified in this review and the context in which the programme is performed. Extra attention should be paid to infants with higher risk for hearing impairment to ensure their return to follow-up.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12887-022-03218-0.

The Impact of Pass/Refer Criteria in the Use of Otoacoustic Emission Technology for Newborn Hearing Screening

Purpose The current study aimed to compare the specificity of transient evoked otoacoustic emissions (TEOAEs) and distortion product otoacoustic emissions (DPOAEs) in isolation and in combination, with varying pass/refer criteria for DPOAE technology. Method A longitudinal, repeated-measures design was employed. The current study sample comprised 91 of the initial 325 participants who returned for the repeat screening and diagnostic audiological assessment within a risk-based newborn hearing screening program. Results TEOAE screening had the highest specificity in comparison to DPOAE screening at the initial and repeat screening, irrespective of differences in DPOAE pass/refer criteria. DPOAE screening had a slightly higher specificity, with a three out of six rather than the four out of six frequency pass criteria. Conclusions Pass/refer criteria alone do not influence referral rates and specificity. Instead, consideration of other factors in combination with these criteria is important. More research is required in terms of the sensitivity and specificity of OAE screening technology using repeated-measures and diagnostic audiological evaluation as the gold standard.

Transiently evoked otoacoustic emissions in children with otitis media with effusion

Introduction. Otitis media with effusion is a common pediatric disease whose diagnosis is based on pneumatic otoscopy, pure-tone audiometry, and tympanometry. The aim of this study was to evaluate transiently evoked otoacoustic emissions in the diagnosis of otitis media with effusion as compared to tympanometry. Patients and Methods. 38 children with bilateral otitis media with effusion were studied. 40 normal children of similar age and sex were used as controls. All subjects underwent pneumatic otoscopy, standard pure-tone audiometry, tympanometry, and transiently evoked otoacoustic emissions. Results. In the group of children with bilateral otitis media, transiently evoked otoacoustic emissions were absent in 51 ears (67%). In the remaining 25 ears (33%) the mean emission amplitude was reduced, as compared to the mean value of the control group. Conclusions. Transiently evoked otoacoustic emissions should be included in the diagnostic workup of otitis media with effusion because it is a fast, reliable, and objective test. Transiently evoked otoacoustic emissions should always be used in conjunction with tympanometry, because a more meaningful interpretation of transiently evoked otoacoustic emissions measures is possible.

Effects of Maturation on Parameters Used for Pass/Fail Criteria in Neonatal Hearing Screening Programmes Using Evoked Otoacoustic Emissions

We aimed to investigate the incidence of false alarms that occurred with the pass/fail criteria used in a published series of neonatal hearing screening programmes, as a function of age. We analysed the database of 19137 normally hearing babies (38274 ears) tested in the Wessex Universal Neonatal Hearing Screening Project. Otoacoustic emissions were recorded prior to discharge from maternity units, using IL088 equipment. We assessed the pass/fail rate using the Wessex criteria and 10 other pass/fail criteria published in the literature. Using Pearson's correlation coefficient, a statistically significant correlation between signal-to-noise ratio at each of the frequency bands 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 kHz and babies' age in hours at the 0.01 level was identified. The correlation was also significant (0.01 level) between age and frequency reproducibility in each of the bands at 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 kHz as well as the whole reproducibility. The number of false alarms reduced significantly after the first 24 h of life with all the criteria examined. We conclude that in the first hours after birth due to insufficient maturation of the otoacoustic emission, there is a high rate of false alarms. This increase in the false alarm rate, whilst dependent on the criteria used, occurs with all criteria. This leads to the consideration of whether the establishment of age-dependent pass/fail criteria could reduce the false alarm rate and the subsequent strain on diagnostic centres.

Success rate of newborn and follow-up screening of hearing using otoacoustic emissions

OBJECTIVE

During the last 6 years, and after a long period of pilot study, a universal newborn hearing screening program based on otoacoustic emissions is implemented in Iaso Maternity Hospital. Our purpose is to present the success rate of otoacoustic emission testing on discharge from the hospital and 1 month later.

METHODS

All full-term newborns who were screened during a period of 2 years and failed testing after one or more sessions of transiently evoked otoacoustic emissions, on discharge from the hospital, were included in the study. These newborns were retested approximately 1 month after discharge.

RESULTS

Twenty-five thousand and thirty-two newborns were examined in total. We found 534 (2.1%) 'refer' cases. Only 223 of them (41.8%) returned to retest in follow-up after 1 month. From the rescreening, 59 (2.3 per thousand) newborns failed in the test again and were referred for diagnostic audiological evaluation.

CONCLUSIONS

The rate of referrals was small, but efforts should be made to decrease it further. The final number of 'failures' found, approaches the expected rate of definitely diagnosed deafness reported from other settings. The main problem we have still to confront is the high missed to-follow-up rate.

The effect of the number of averaged responses on the measurement of transiently evoked otoacoustic emissions in newborns

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to examine the effect of the number of averaged responses on the measurement of transiently evoked otoacoustic emissions (TEOAEs).

METHODS

The study was performed on the background of a universal newborn hearing screening program implemented in Iaso Maternity Hospital. Two groups of full-term newborns with normal otoacoustic emissions were studied. The first group included 58 newborns (115) ears, in which 260 low-noise samples, provided by the default setting of the equipment used (ILO88), were presented. The second group included 58 newborns (113) ears, in which 20-50 averaged responses were presented, until the "pass" criteria would be met. Statistical comparison between the following parameters recorded during TEOAE measurement was performed: Overall response, signal-to-noise ratios, reproducibility (whole and partial), stimulus intensity, stimulus stability, input noise, noise rejection level and duration of testing.

RESULTS

Statistically significant differences were found in most of these parameters, except for overall response, stimulus intensity and noise rejection level.

CONCLUSIONS

Although a smaller number of clicks is usually sufficient to obtain a "pass" in newborn hearing screening programs, the quality of recording of TEOAEs is significantly improved by increasing the number of averaged low-noise responses.

Making universal newborn hearing screening a success

OBJECTIVE

Following a long period of pilot study, Iaso maternity hospital established a universal newborn hearing screening program based on transiently evoked otoacoustic emissions (TEOAEs). The aim of this study is to present the improvement of outcome measures of this program, comparing the results of two groups of newborns screened successively.

METHODS

We analyzed data from two groups of full-term newborns screened at our setting. The first group included all newborns born and screened during the initial 3 years of application of the program and the second group included all newborns born and screened during the next 2 years. TEOAEs were performed during the first days after birth. All newborns who failed the initial test underwent repeat testing with TEOAEs before hospital discharge. Newborns with absence of otoacoustic emissions were referred to follow-up test after 1 month. Results were compared between the two groups.

RESULTS

The first group included 22,195 newborns-examined during 3 years and the second group included 25,032 newborns-examined during 2 years, due to reduction of the rate of newborns who missed screening. Refer rate was 3.1% for the first group and 2.1% for the second group. "Missed to follow-up" rate was reduced from 72.2% in the first group to 58.2% in the second group.

CONCLUSIONS

The rate of newborns who did not undergo screening and the rate of "missed to follow-up" newborns were reduced in time, due to various modifications of the protocol. Universal newborn hearing screening may be, thus, a feasible and cost effective method of identifying congenital hearing loss.

Newborn Hearing Screening: Effectiveness, Importance of High-Risk Factors, and Characteristics of Infants in the Neonatal Intensive Care Unit and Well-Baby Nursery

BACKGROUND

In contrast to the recommendations of the Joint Committee on Infant Hearing, neonatal hearing screening programs are still not universally available, and many countries implement elective screening in high-risk newborns.

OBJECTIVE

To assess the failure rates of neonates in hearing screening and the relative importance of risk factors for hearing impairment, both in neonatal intensive care units and in well-baby nursery neonates. The impact on cost-effectiveness is also evaluated.

SUBJECTS

In the current study, 25,288 newborns were assessed; 23,574 were full-term newborns in the well-baby nursery and 1,714 neonates were in neonatal intensive care units.

METHODS

All neonates had a general examination (including assessment for congenital anomalies and related history) and were assessed using transient evoked otoacoustic emissions. All newborns were older than 36 weeks at examination and thus had reliable transient evoked otoacoustic emissions.

RESULTS

From the 23,574 full-term neonates in the well-baby nursery, 23,123 (98.1%) passed the test and 451 failed (1.9%). Fifty-three of the 23,574 neonates (0.2%) had a risk factor for hearing impairment; 44 (83%) passed the test and 9 failed (17%). Family history of congenital hearing loss and congenital anomalies were the most frequent risk factors for hearing loss. From the 1,714 neonates in neonatal intensive care units, 1,590 (93%) passed the test and 124 failed (7%). Two hundred thirty-two of the 1,714 neonates (14%) had a risk factor for hearing impairment; 205 (88%) passed the test and 27 failed (12%). In neonatal intensive care unit neonates, toxic levels of ototoxic drugs, mechanical ventilation for more than 24 hours, prematurity, and low birth weight were the most frequent risk factors for hearing loss. Congenital anomalies/syndromes were the most important risk factors for failing screening in both the neonatal intensive care unit and the well-baby nursery, as they showed the highest risk of failing hearing screening. The second most important factor in neonatal intensive care unit newborns was low birth weight, and the third was prematurity in relation to the possibility of failing hearing screening.

CONCLUSION

The present study found 575 neonates failing hearing screening of 25,288 tested newborns (2.3%). The fact that 78% of newborns who failed hearing screening were in the well-baby nurseries further supports the necessity of universal hearing screening instead of selective screening in neonatal intensive care units, even with the obvious impact on cost-effectiveness. Even if limited funding lead to selective screening in neonatal intensive care units, this should not be applied to high-risk newborns but to all neonatal intensive care unit neonates. Continuous assessment of risk factors and the related possibility of failing hearing screening are of paramount importance in designing hearing screening programs and refining the respective criteria.