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: Determining concordance and cost impact of otoacoustic emission and automated auditory brainstem response in newborn hearing screening in a tertiary hospital.
    Author: Ong KMC, Rivera AS, Chan AL, Chiong CM.
    Journal: Int J Pediatr Otorhinolaryngol; 2020 Jan; 128():109704. PubMed ID: 31606683.
    Abstract:
    OBJECTIVE: This study compared otoacoustic emission (OAE) and automated auditory brainstem response (AABR) in terms of concordance and cost impact for newborn hearing screening (NBHS) in the Philippine setting. METHODS: This was a prospective observational study to assess concordance between OAE and AABR involving 253 infants. Each infant underwent OAE and AABR testing. Infants who passed both tests were not required to follow up for additional testing. Infants who failed in any test were scheduled for repeat screening and diagnostic ABR after 1 month. Concordance was computed using B-statistic. FOR COST ANALYSIS: 4 scenarios were compared to 1-step both tests scenario: (1) OAE alone, (2) AABR alone, (3) 2-step OAE, and (4) 2-step AABR in terms of number of infants with hearing loss (HL) detected, cost of diagnosis, and economic loss from lack of treatment. RESULTS: There was high concordance between OAE and AABR (B-statistic = 0.8). AABR had a higher refer rate (18.58%) than OAE (10.27%) but higher number of detected babies with HL. Cost analysis favored an AABR alone scenario while the 2-step OAE protocol fared poorly. CONCLUSION: A change from 2-step OAE to AABR alone is worth considering in our institution.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]