Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-dk4vv Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-19T04:06:34.575Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Accuracy of otoacoustic emissions, and automated and diagnostic auditory brainstem responses, in high-risk infants

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  09 May 2019

W Khaimook ,
D Pantuyosyanyong  and
P Pitathawatchai
W Khaimook*
Affiliation:
Department of Otorhinolaryngology Head and Neck Surgery, Faculty of Medicine, Prince of Songkla University, Hat Yai, Songkhla, Thailand
D Pantuyosyanyong
Affiliation:
Department of Otorhinolaryngology Head and Neck Surgery, Faculty of Medicine, Prince of Songkla University, Hat Yai, Songkhla, Thailand
P Pitathawatchai
Affiliation:
Department of Otorhinolaryngology Head and Neck Surgery, Faculty of Medicine, Prince of Songkla University, Hat Yai, Songkhla, Thailand
*
Author for correspondence: Associate Professor Wandee Khaimook, Department of Otorhinolaryngology Head and Neck Surgery, Faculty of Medicine, Prince of Songkla University, Hat Yai, Songkhla 90110, Thailand E-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Objectives

This study aimed to compare the diagnostic reliabilities of transient evoked otoacoustic emissions, automated auditory brainstem responses and brainstem auditory evoked responses for detecting hearing loss, and to use the information regarding hearing level of automated auditory brainstem responses for planning rehabilitation.

Methods

A total of 144 high-risk infants (288 ears) completed the 3 hearing tests. The sensitivity and specificity of otoacoustic emissions and automated auditory brainstem responses were compared using the chi-square test.

Results

Automated auditory brainstem response was the most reliable test of hearing levels, with a sensitivity of 91.7 per cent and specificity of 92.1 per cent; the sensitivity of otoacoustic emissions was 78.7 per cent and the specificity was 88.8 per cent.

Conclusion

Automated auditory brainstem responses have acceptably high sensitivity and specificity. Additionally, the hearing level from automated auditory brainstem responses can help the screeners explain to the parents the importance of further diagnosis and rehabilitation.

Keywords

Data AccuracyAuditory Brainstem ResponsesInfants
Type
Main Articles
Information
The Journal of Laryngology & Otology , Volume 133 , Issue 5 , May 2019 , pp. 363 - 367
Copyright
Copyright © JLO (1984) Limited, 2019 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

Associate Professor W Khaimook takes responsibility for the integrity of the content of the paper

References

1American Academy of Pediatrics, Joint Committee on Infant Hearing. Year 2007 position statement: principles and guidelines for early hearing detection and intervention programs. Pediatrics 2007;120:898–921Google Scholar
2Boo, NY, Rohani, AJ, Asma, A. Detection of sensorineural hearing loss using automated auditory brainstem-evoked response and transient-evoked otoacoustic emission in term neonates with severe hyperbilirubinemia. Singapore Med J 2008;49:209–14Google Scholar
3Maris, M, Venstermans, C, Boudewyns, AN. Auditory neuropathy/dyssynchrony as a cause of failed neonatal hearing screening. Int J Pediatr Otorhinolaryngol 2011;75:973–5Google Scholar
4Unlu, I, Guclu, E, Yaman, H. When should automatic auditory brainstem response test be used for newborn hearing screening? Auris Nasus Larynx 2015;42:199–202Google Scholar
5Shang, Y, Hao, W, Gao, Z, Xu, C, Ru, Y, Ni, D. An effective compromise between cost and referral rate: a sequential hearing screening protocol using TEOAEs and AABRs for healthy newborns. Int J Pediatr Otorhinolarynogol 2016;91:141–5Google Scholar
6Van Dyk, M, Swanepoel de, W, Hall, JW 3rd. Outcomes with OAE and AABR screening in the first 48 h – implications for newborn hearing screening in developing countries. Int J Pediatr Otorhinolaryngol 2015;79:1034–40Google Scholar
7Kuki, S, Chadha, S, Dhingra, S, Gulati, A. The role of current audiological tests in the early diagnosis of hearing impairment in infant. Indian J Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2013;65:244–50Google Scholar
8Arnold, SA. The auditory brainstem response. In: Roeser, RJ, Valente, M, Hosford-Dunn, H, eds. Audiology: Diagnosis, 2nd edn. New York: Thieme, 2007;426–42Google Scholar
9Smith, RJ, Bale, JF Jr, White, KR. Sensorineural hearing loss in children. Lancet 2005;365:879–90Google Scholar
10Suppiej, A, Rizzardi, E, Zanardo, V, Franzoi, M, Ermani, M, Orzan, E. Reliability of hearing screening in high-risk neonates: comparative study of otoacoustic emission, automated and conventional auditory brainstem response. Clin Neurophysiol 2007;118:869–76Google Scholar
11Benito-Orejas, JI, Ramirez, B, Morais, D, Almaraz, A, Fernandez-Calvo, JL. Comparison of two-step transient evoked otoacoustic emissions (TEOAE) and automated auditory brainstem response (AABR) for universal newborn hearing screening programs. Int J Pediatr Otorhinolaryngol 2008;72:1193–201Google Scholar
12Erenberg, A, Lemons, J, Sia, C, Trunkel, D, Ziring, P. Newborn and infant hearing loss: detection and intervention. American Academy of Pediatrics. Task Force on Newborn and Infant Hearing, 1998–1999. Pediatrics 1999;103:527–30Google Scholar
13Thompson, DC, McPhillips, H, Davis, RL, Lieu, TL, Homer, CJ, Helfand, M. Universal newborn hearing screening: summary of evidence. JAMA 2001;286:2000–10Google Scholar
14Smets, K, Verrue, N, Dhooge, I. Implementation and results of bedside hearing screening with automated auditory brainstem response in the neonatal intensive care unit. Acta Paediatr 2012;101:392–8Google Scholar
15Van Straaten, HL, Hille, ET, Kok, JH, Verkerk, PH; Dutch NICU Neonatal Hearing Screening Working Group. Implementation of a nation-wide automated auditory brainstem response hearing screening programme in neonatal intensive care units. Acta Paediatr 2003;92:332–8Google Scholar