International journal of pediatric otorhinolaryngology · 2019
Determining concordance and cost impact of otoacoustic emission and automated auditory brainstem response in newborn hearing screening in a tertiary hospital.
СтатьяНаблюдательное исследованиеНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Ong Kimberly Mae C, Rivera Adovich S, Chan Abner L, Chiong Charlotte M
Аннотация
OBJECTIVE: This study compared otoacoustic emission (OAE) and automated auditory brainstem response (AABR) in terms of concordance and cost impact for newborn hearing screening (NBHS) in the Philippine setting.
METHODS: This was a prospective observational study to assess concordance between OAE and AABR involving 253 infants. Each infant underwent OAE and AABR testing. Infants who passed both tests were not required to follow up for additional testing. Infants who failed in any test were scheduled for repeat screening and diagnostic ABR after 1 month. Concordance was computed using B-statistic.
FOR COST ANALYSIS: 4 scenarios were compared to 1-step both tests scenario: (1) OAE alone, (2) AABR alone, (3) 2-step OAE, and (4) 2-step AABR in terms of number of infants with hearing loss (HL) detected, cost of diagnosis, and economic loss from lack of treatment.
RESULTS: There was high concordance between OAE and AABR (B-statistic = 0.8). AABR had a higher refer rate (18.58%) than OAE (10.27%) but higher number of detected babies with HL. Cost analysis favored an AABR alone scenario while the 2-step OAE protocol fared poorly.
CONCLUSION: A change from 2-step OAE to AABR alone is worth considering in our institution.
METHODS: This was a prospective observational study to assess concordance between OAE and AABR involving 253 infants. Each infant underwent OAE and AABR testing. Infants who passed both tests were not required to follow up for additional testing. Infants who failed in any test were scheduled for repeat screening and diagnostic ABR after 1 month. Concordance was computed using B-statistic.
FOR COST ANALYSIS: 4 scenarios were compared to 1-step both tests scenario: (1) OAE alone, (2) AABR alone, (3) 2-step OAE, and (4) 2-step AABR in terms of number of infants with hearing loss (HL) detected, cost of diagnosis, and economic loss from lack of treatment.
RESULTS: There was high concordance between OAE and AABR (B-statistic = 0.8). AABR had a higher refer rate (18.58%) than OAE (10.27%) but higher number of detected babies with HL. Cost analysis favored an AABR alone scenario while the 2-step OAE protocol fared poorly.
CONCLUSION: A change from 2-step OAE to AABR alone is worth considering in our institution.