Evaluation of otoacoustic emission characteristics of neonates in different time periods
Background and Aim: Universal newborn hearing screening program (UNHS) using otoacoustic emission (OAE) has been expanded dramatically. The aim of this study was to compare the characteristics of OAE in different time periods.
Methods: In this cohort study, 54 well babies were tested using screening transient-evoked otoacoustic emission in 12, 24, 36, 48 hours and 1 week of their age in Tamin Ejtemaii hospital of Zahedan, Iran. Parameters of "pass" and "fail" level, duration of the test, repetition rate for getting definite result and cooperation level of the parents were analyzed.
Results: The failing rate decreased markedly with age. The major part of this decrement concerned to the age of 12 to 24 hours (left ear: p=0.012 and right ear: p=0.057). Only for the age of 12 hours, the test repetition reduced the failing rate significantly (left ear: p=0.001 and right ear: p<0.001). The test duration reduced significantly with age increment and decreased from the 75 second in age 12 hours to 21 second in age of 24 hours. The test time median for 36, 48 hours and one week of age was 13, 8.4 and 14.3 second, respectively. Among the 54 parents requested to come back for retest one week later, 5 (9.3%) cooperated.
Conclusion: Age effect on referral rate were confirmed in this study; high referral rate and poor parent cooperation were the main problems in universal newborn hearing screening program in Zahedan city.
2. Olusanya BO, Luxon LM, Wirz SL. Benefits and challenges of newborn hearing screening for developing countries. Int J Pediatr Otorhinolaryngol. 2004;68(3):287-305.
3. Benito-Orejas JI, Ramírez B, Morais D, Almaraz A, Fernández-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(8):1193-201.
4. Doyle KJ, Burggraaff B, Fujikawa S, Kim J. Newborn hearing screening by otoacoustic emissions and automated auditory brainstem response. Int J Pediatr Otorhinolaryngol. 1997;41(2):111-9.
5. Lin HC, Shu MT, Chang KC, Bruna SM. A universal newborn hearing screening program in Taiwan. Int J Pediatr Otorhinolaryngol. 2002;63(3):209-18.
6. Eiserman WD, Hartel DM, Shisler L, Buhrmann J, White KR, Foust T. Using otoacoustic emissions to screen for hearing loss in early childhood care settings. Int J Pediatr Otorhinolaryngol. 2008;72(4):475-82.
7. Chang KW, Vohr BR, Norton SJ, Lekas MD. External and middle ear status related to evoked otoacoustic emission in neonates. Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 1993;119(3):276-82.
8. Doyle KJ, Rodgers P, Fujikawa S, Newman E. External and middle ear effects on infant hearing screening test results. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2000;122(4):477-81.
9. Kok MR, van Zanten GA, Brocaar MP. Growth of evoked otoacoustic emissions during the first days postpartum. A preliminary report. Audiology. 1992;31(3):140-9.
10. Kerschner JE, Meurer JR, Conway AE, Fleischfresser S, Cowell MH, Seeliger E, et al. Voluntary progress toward universal newborn hearing screening. Int J Pediatr Otorhinolaryngol. 2004;68(2):165-74.
11. Olusanya BO, Somefun AO. Place of birth and characteristics of infants with congenital and early-onset hearing loss in a developing country. Int J Pediatr Otorhinolaryngol. 2009;73(9):1263-9.
12. Prieve B, Fitzgerald T. Otoacoustic emissions. In: Katz J, Medwetsky L, Burkard R, Hood L. Handbook of clinical audiology. 6th ed. Baltimore: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins; 2009. p. 508-9.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.