These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


Pubmed for Handhelds

PUBMED FOR HANDHELDS

Search MEDLINE/PubMed

  • Title: A multisite study to examine the efficacy of the otoacoustic emission/automated auditory brainstem response newborn hearing screening protocol: recommendations for policy, practice, and research.
    Author: Gravel JS, White KR, Johnson JL, Widen JE, Vohr BR, James M, Kennalley T, Maxon AB, Spivak L, Sullivan-Mahoney M, Weirather Y, Meyer S.
    Journal: Am J Audiol; 2005 Dec; 14(2):S217-28. PubMed ID: 16489865.
    Abstract:
    PURPOSE: This article examines whether changes in hearing screening practices are warranted based on the results of the recent series of studies by J. L. Johnson, K. R. White, J. E. Widen, J. S. Gravel, B. R. Vohr, M. James, T. Kennalley, A. B. Maxon, L. Spivak, M. Sullivan-Mahoney, Y. Weirather, and S. Meyer (Johnson, White, Widen, Gravel, James, et al., 2005; Johnson, White, Widen, Gravel, Vohr, et al., 2005; White et al., 2005; Widen et al., 2005) that found a significant number of infants who passed an automated auditory brainstem response (A-ABR) screening after failing an initial otoacoustic emission (OAE) screening later were found to have permanent hearing loss in one or both ears. METHOD: Similar to the approach used by F. H. Bess and J. Paradise (1994), this article addresses the public health tenets that need to be in place before screening programs, or in this case, a change in screening practice (use of a 2-step screening protocol) can be justified. RESULTS: There are no data to suggest that a 2-step OAE/A-ABR screening protocol should be avoided. CONCLUSION: Research is needed before any change in public policy and practice surrounding current early hearing detection and intervention programs could be supported.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]