A comparison of automated auditory brainstem responses and transiently evoked otoacoustic emissions for universal newborn hearing screening

Korres, SG; Balatsouras, DG; Lyra, C; Kandiloros, D; Ferekidis, E

dc.contributor.author	Korres, SG	en
dc.contributor.author	Balatsouras, DG	en
dc.contributor.author	Lyra, C	en
dc.contributor.author	Kandiloros, D	en
dc.contributor.author	Ferekidis, E	en
dc.date.accessioned	2014-03-01T01:55:30Z
dc.date.available	2014-03-01T01:55:30Z
dc.date.issued	2006	en
dc.identifier.issn	1234-1010	en
dc.identifier.uri	https://dspace.lib.ntua.gr/xmlui/handle/123456789/27762
dc.subject	hearing screening	en
dc.subject	screening	en
dc.subject	hearing	en
dc.subject	transiently evoked otoacoustic emissions	en
dc.subject	auditory brainstem responses	en
dc.subject.classification	Medicine, Research & Experimental	en
dc.subject.other	IDENTIFICATION	en
dc.subject.other	INTERVENTION	en
dc.subject.other	IMPAIRMENT	en
dc.title	A comparison of automated auditory brainstem responses and transiently evoked otoacoustic emissions for universal newborn hearing screening	en
heal.type	journalArticle	en
heal.language	English	en
heal.publicationDate	2006	en
heal.abstract	Background: The aim of this study was to compare the performance of automated auditory brainstem responses (a-ABR) and automated transiently evoked otoacoustic emissions (a-TEOAEs). Material/Methods: A prospective, case-control study in a group of newborns was performed in a maternity hospital carrying out universal newborn hearing screening. Two groups of full-term newborns were examined. The first group included 50 newborns (100 ears) who underwent: 1) a-TEOAEs, 2) a-ABR, and 3) transiently evoked otoacoustic emissions (TEOAEs). The second group consisted of the same number of newborns who underwent identical testing, but in a different order: 1) a-ABR, 2) a-TEOAEs, and 3) TEOAEs. All a-TEOAE and a-ABR testing was performed using the AccuScreen device and all standard TEOAE testing was performed using the ILO88. The pass-fail results of each method were recorded and compared. Results: a-ABR yielded lower referral rates than the otoacoustic emission tests, but the differences were not statistically significant. Comparison between the two groups of study showed higher "pass" rates in the second group, indicating an order effect. Conclusions: Either method might be useful in universal newborn hearing screening. However, the lower referal rate obtained by a-ABR and its potential to recognize infants at risk for auditory neuropathy and central pathology should be considered.	en
heal.publisher	INT SCIENTIFIC LITERATURE, INC	en
heal.journalName	MEDICAL SCIENCE MONITOR	en
dc.identifier.isi	ISI:000238542000009	en
dc.identifier.volume	12	en
dc.identifier.issue	6	en
dc.identifier.spage	CR260	en
dc.identifier.epage	CR263	en