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: Neonatal hearing screening using a smartphone-based otoacoustic emission device: A comparative study.
    Author: Madzivhandila AG, le Roux T, Biagio de Jager L.
    Journal: Int J Pediatr Otorhinolaryngol; 2024 Feb; 177():111862. PubMed ID: 38295684.
    Abstract:
    OBJECTIVE: Increasing options are becoming available for clinicians and healthcare professionals who use smartphone-based applications (apps) to identify hearing loss. The use of smartphone-based apps for newborn hearing screening (NHS) has been proposed as an alternative screening method in NHS programs. This study aims to compare the screening outcomes of a smartphone-based otoacoustic emission (OAE) screening device to a commercially available OAE screening device. METHODS: NHS was conducted in the post-natal maternity ward and neonatal intensive care unit (NICU) of two tertiary public healthcare hospitals over a period of 8 months. Within participant DPOAE and TEOAE screening outcomes of a smartphone-based OAE device (hearOAE) were compared to that of the Otodynamics ILO V6. RESULTS: A total of 176 infants (n = 352 ears; 48.9 % female) underwent NHS (DPOAE n = 176; TEOAE n = 176). The mean age at was 4.5 days (SD 11.3). Signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) were higher with the hearOAE with TEOAE NHS, and equivalent or higher SNR at four out of six frequencies with DPOAEs. Mean and total noise levels were significantly lower for the hearOAE compared to the Otodynamics with DPOAEs noise levels of five out of six frequencies being equivalent to, or lower than the Otodynamics (p < 0.001). Lower noise levels are likely to be advantageous in less-than-ideal test conditions. Inter-device DPOAE comparison indicated no statistically significant difference in the refer rate between the devices (p = 0.238). DPOAE pass rates between devices differed in 6 ears (p > 0.05), and in 20 ears for TEOAEs, with the hearOAE demonstrating a higher TEOAE pass rate (p = 0.009). The hearOAE did, however, demonstrate lower noise levels at three out five frequencies, which may have impacted the pass rate. No statistically significant correlation was found between the independent variables and the screening outcome (pass/refer) for TEOAEs using either device (p = 0.105 to 0.810). A high concordance of NHS outcomes within-participants of 89.7 % and 85.0 % for DPOAE and TEOAE respectively, was measured. CONCLUSIONS: The mHealth based OAE device demonstrated good agreement in NHS outcomes compared to a commercially available device. This verifies the performance of the novel smartphone based OAE device, and may facilitate increased accessibility of decentralised NHS service in resource constrained populations.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]