Objective: To compare the diagnostic reliability of automated transient evoked otoacoustic emissions (a-TEOAE), automated auditory brainstem response (a-ABR) and conventional brainstem auditory evoked potential (BAEP/ABR) for identification of hearing loss in high-risk neonates. Methods: Two hundred and six neonatal intensive care unit (NICU) admitted neonates were tested pre-discharge. Follow-up included a-TEOAE in all children, repetition of a-ABR or BAEP if failed in NICU. Sensitivity and specificity were compared and correlated with auditory risk factors. Results: BAEP had the highest sensitivity (100%) and specificity (90.8%), a-ABR the lowest (88.9% and 70.6%). A statistically significant difference in risk factors for temporary hearing loss was observed between normal and false positive a-TEOAE and BAEP, but not a-ABR outcome. Differences in specificity between a-ABR and a-TEOAE explain the pattern of 'absent a-ABR/present a-TEOAE' in 13.8% of ears. Conclusions: The BAEP appears the more reliable test for hearing screening of high-risk neonates because of highest sensitivity and specificity and should be used to confirm the diagnosis of 'auditory neuropathy' in high-risk neonates. The reliability of a-ABR devices in critically ill neonates needs further investigation. Significance: This is, to our knowledge, the first attempt to compare the diagnostic reliability of a-TEOAE, a-ABR and BAEP in high-risk neonates. (c) 2007 International Federation of Clinical Neurophysiology. Published by Elsevier Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved.

Reliability of hearing screening in high-risk neonates: Comparative study of otoacoustic emission, automated and conventional auditory brainstem response

Suppiej A
Primo
;
2007

Abstract

Objective: To compare the diagnostic reliability of automated transient evoked otoacoustic emissions (a-TEOAE), automated auditory brainstem response (a-ABR) and conventional brainstem auditory evoked potential (BAEP/ABR) for identification of hearing loss in high-risk neonates. Methods: Two hundred and six neonatal intensive care unit (NICU) admitted neonates were tested pre-discharge. Follow-up included a-TEOAE in all children, repetition of a-ABR or BAEP if failed in NICU. Sensitivity and specificity were compared and correlated with auditory risk factors. Results: BAEP had the highest sensitivity (100%) and specificity (90.8%), a-ABR the lowest (88.9% and 70.6%). A statistically significant difference in risk factors for temporary hearing loss was observed between normal and false positive a-TEOAE and BAEP, but not a-ABR outcome. Differences in specificity between a-ABR and a-TEOAE explain the pattern of 'absent a-ABR/present a-TEOAE' in 13.8% of ears. Conclusions: The BAEP appears the more reliable test for hearing screening of high-risk neonates because of highest sensitivity and specificity and should be used to confirm the diagnosis of 'auditory neuropathy' in high-risk neonates. The reliability of a-ABR devices in critically ill neonates needs further investigation. Significance: This is, to our knowledge, the first attempt to compare the diagnostic reliability of a-TEOAE, a-ABR and BAEP in high-risk neonates. (c) 2007 International Federation of Clinical Neurophysiology. Published by Elsevier Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved.
Suppiej, A; Rizzardi, E; Zanardo, V; Franzoi, M; Ermani, M; Orzan, E
File in questo prodotto:
Non ci sono file associati a questo prodotto.

I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.

Utilizza questo identificativo per citare o creare un link a questo documento: https://hdl.handle.net/11392/2388053
 Attenzione

Attenzione! I dati visualizzati non sono stati sottoposti a validazione da parte dell'ateneo

Citazioni
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.pmc??? 5
  • Scopus 42
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.isi??? 31
social impact