PEDIATRICS Vol. 116 No. 3 September 2005, pp. 663-672 (doi:10.1542/10.1542/peds.2004-1688)
A Multicenter Evaluation of How Many Infants With Permanent Hearing Loss Pass a Two-Stage Otoacoustic Emissions/Automated Auditory Brainstem Response Newborn Hearing Screening Protocol






* Center on Disability Studies, University of Hawaii, Honolulu, Hawaii
National Center for Hearing Assessment and Management, Utah State University, Logan, Utah
University of Kansas Medical Center, Kansas City, Kansas
|| Albert Einstein College of Medicine and Jacobi Medical Center, Bronx, New York
¶ Arnold Palmer Hospital for Infants and Women, Orlando, Florida
# Via Christi Regional Medical Center, Wichita, Kansas
** New England Center for Hearing Rehabilitation, Hampton, Connecticut

Long Island Jewish Medical Center, New Hyde Park, New York

Good Samaritan Hospital, Cincinnati, Ohio
|||| Women and Infants Hospital, Providence, Rhode Island
¶¶ Kapiolani Medical Center for Women and Infants, Honolulu, Hawaii
## EHDI Consultant, Lexington, South Carolina
Objective. Ninety percent of all newborns in the United States are now screened for hearing loss before they leave the hospital. Many hospitals use a 2-stage protocol for newborn hearing screening in which all infants are screened first with otoacoustic emissions (OAE). No additional testing is done with infants who pass the OAE, but infants who fail the OAE next are screened with automated auditory brainstem response (A-ABR). Infants who fail the A-ABR screening are referred for diagnostic testing to determine whether they have permanent hearing loss (PHL). Those who pass the A-ABR are considered at low risk for hearing loss and are not tested further. The objective of this multicenter study was to determine whether a substantial number of infants who fail the initial OAE and pass the A-ABR have PHL at
9 months of age.
Methods. Seven birthing centers with successful newborn hearing screening programs using a 2-stage OAE/A-ABR screening protocol participated. During the study period, 86634 infants were screened for hearing loss at these sites. Of those infants who failed the OAE but passed the A-ABR in at least 1 ear, 1524 were enrolled in the study. Data about prenatal, neonatal, and socioeconomic factors, plus hearing loss risk indicators, were collected for all enrolled infants. When the infants were an average of 9.7 months of age, diagnostic audiologic evaluations were done for 64% of the enrolled infants (1432 ears from 973 infants).
Results. Twenty-one infants (30 ears) who had failed the OAE but passed the A-ABR during the newborn hearing screening were identified with permanent bilateral or unilateral hearing loss. Twenty-three (77%) of the ears had mild hearing loss (average of 1 kHz, 2 kHz, and 4 kHz
40-decibel hearing level). Nine (43%) infants had bilateral as opposed to unilateral loss, and 18 (86%) infants had sensorineural as opposed to permanent conductive hearing loss.
Conclusions. If all infants were screened for hearing loss using the 2-stage OAE/A-ABR newborn hearing screening protocol currently used in many hospitals, then
23% of those with PHL at
9 months of age would have passed the A-ABR. This happens in part because much of the A-ABR screening equipment in current use was designed to identify infants with moderate or greater hearing loss. Thus, program administrators should be certain that the screening program, equipment, and protocols are designed to identify the type of hearing loss targeted by their program. The results also show the need for continued surveillance of hearing status during childhood.
Key Words: hearing loss hearing screening efficacy
Abbreviations: OAE, otoacoustic emissions ABR, auditory brainstem response TEOAE, transient evoked otoacoustic emissions DPOAE, distortion product otoacoustic emissions VRA, visual reinforcement audiometry A-ABR, automated-auditory brainstem response CDC, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention RFP, request for proposals PHL, permanent hearing loss dB, decibel nHL, normal hearing level JCIH, Joint Committee on Infant Hearing NCHAM, National Center for Hearing Assessment and Management
Accepted Dec 28, 2004.
![]()
CiteULike
Connotea
Del.icio.us
Digg
Facebook
Reddit
Technorati
Twitter What's this?
This article has been cited by other articles:
![]() |
C. M. T. Robertson, T. M. Howarth, D. L. R. Bork, and I. A. Dinu Permanent Bilateral Sensory and Neural Hearing Loss of Children After Neonatal Intensive Care Because of Extreme Prematurity: A Thirty-Year Study Pediatrics, May 1, 2009; 123(5): e797 - e807. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
K. W Chang, T J O-Lee, and M. Price Evaluation of unilateral referrals on neonatal hearing screening J Med Screen, March 1, 2009; 16(1): 17 - 21. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
D. S. Ross, W. J. Holstrum, M. Gaffney, D. Green, R. F. Oyler, and J. S. Gravel Hearing Screening and Diagnostic Evaluation of Children With Unilateral and Mild Bilateral Hearing Loss Trends in Amplification, March 1, 2008; 12(1): 27 - 34. [Abstract] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
S. McKay, J. S. Gravel, and A. M. Tharpe Amplification Considerations for Children With Minimal or Mild Bilateral Hearing Loss and Unilateral Hearing Loss Trends in Amplification, March 1, 2008; 12(1): 43 - 54. [Abstract] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
S. Mckay Frequency Modulated (FM) Considerations for Children With Minimal/Mild or Unilateral Hearing Loss Hearing and Hearing Disorders in Childhood, March 1, 2008; 18(1): 10 - 18. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
Joint Committee on Infant Hearing Year 2007 Position Statement: Principles and Guidelines for Early Hearing Detection and Intervention Programs Pediatrics, October 1, 2007; 120(4): 898 - 921. [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
M. Wake, S. Tobin, B. Cone-Wesson, H.-H. Dahl, L. Gillam, L. McCormick, Z. Poulakis, F. W. Rickards, K. Saunders, O. C. Ukoumunne, et al. Slight/Mild Sensorineural Hearing Loss in Children Pediatrics, November 1, 2006; 118(5): 1842 - 1851. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
C. C. Morton and W. E. Nance Newborn Hearing Screening -- A Silent Revolution N. Engl. J. Med., May 18, 2006; 354(20): 2151 - 2164. [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||









