在单个埃及中心的新生儿听力筛查的针对性与普遍性。

ISRN pediatrics Pub Date : 2013-09-12 eCollection Date: 2013-01-01 DOI:10.1155/2013/574937
Safaa S Imam, Rania A El-Farrash, Hesham M Taha, Helbees E Bishoy
{"title":"在单个埃及中心的新生儿听力筛查的针对性与普遍性。","authors":"Safaa S Imam,&nbsp;Rania A El-Farrash,&nbsp;Hesham M Taha,&nbsp;Helbees E Bishoy","doi":"10.1155/2013/574937","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Aim. To compare targeted neonatal hearing screening (TNHS) and universal neonatal hearing screening (UNHS) since many developing countries, including Egypt, implement selective screening for high-risk neonates. Methods. 150 neonates were assessed; 50 full terms consecutively admitted to the well-baby nursery and 100 neonates consecutively admitted to neonatal intensive care unit (NICU), Ain Shams University. Patients were further subdivided into high-risk group which included 50 neonates with multiple risk factors for hearing loss and low risk group which included 50 neonates with only one risk factor. Transient evoked otoacoustic emissions (TEOAEs) were used for hearing screening. Auditory brain response (ABR) was performed 3 months later for failed TEOAEs. Results. The most frequent risk factor was consanguinity (46%). In the well-baby population, 16% failed TEOAEs. In the NICU, 30% of the low risk and 38% of the high risk groups failed TEOAEs. Regarding ABR, failed results were 12%, 10%, and 8% in the high-risk, low-risk, and healthy groups, respectively. Conclusion. The use of TNHS would have missed 8% of neonates from the well-baby group who actually had PCHL (permanent congenital hearing loss). The use of UNHS would identify all cases with PCHL, allowing for early intervention and follow-up. </p>","PeriodicalId":73521,"journal":{"name":"ISRN pediatrics","volume":" ","pages":"574937"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2013-09-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1155/2013/574937","citationCount":"17","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Targeted versus Universal Neonatal Hearing Screening in a Single Egyptian Center.\",\"authors\":\"Safaa S Imam,&nbsp;Rania A El-Farrash,&nbsp;Hesham M Taha,&nbsp;Helbees E Bishoy\",\"doi\":\"10.1155/2013/574937\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>Aim. To compare targeted neonatal hearing screening (TNHS) and universal neonatal hearing screening (UNHS) since many developing countries, including Egypt, implement selective screening for high-risk neonates. Methods. 150 neonates were assessed; 50 full terms consecutively admitted to the well-baby nursery and 100 neonates consecutively admitted to neonatal intensive care unit (NICU), Ain Shams University. Patients were further subdivided into high-risk group which included 50 neonates with multiple risk factors for hearing loss and low risk group which included 50 neonates with only one risk factor. Transient evoked otoacoustic emissions (TEOAEs) were used for hearing screening. Auditory brain response (ABR) was performed 3 months later for failed TEOAEs. Results. The most frequent risk factor was consanguinity (46%). In the well-baby population, 16% failed TEOAEs. In the NICU, 30% of the low risk and 38% of the high risk groups failed TEOAEs. Regarding ABR, failed results were 12%, 10%, and 8% in the high-risk, low-risk, and healthy groups, respectively. Conclusion. The use of TNHS would have missed 8% of neonates from the well-baby group who actually had PCHL (permanent congenital hearing loss). The use of UNHS would identify all cases with PCHL, allowing for early intervention and follow-up. </p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":73521,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"ISRN pediatrics\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"574937\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2013-09-12\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1155/2013/574937\",\"citationCount\":\"17\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"ISRN pediatrics\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1155/2013/574937\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2013/1/1 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"eCollection\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"ISRN pediatrics","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1155/2013/574937","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2013/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 17

摘要

的目标。比较针对性新生儿听力筛查(TNHS)和普遍新生儿听力筛查(UNHS),因为包括埃及在内的许多发展中国家对高危新生儿实施选择性筛查。方法:对150例新生儿进行评估;艾因沙姆斯大学新生儿重症监护病房(NICU)连续收治新生儿50例和新生儿100例。将患者进一步分为高危组(50例伴有多种听力损失危险因素的新生儿)和低危组(50例伴有一种听力损失危险因素的新生儿)。瞬态诱发耳声发射(teoae)用于听力筛查。teoae失败3个月后进行脑听觉反应(ABR)。结果。最常见的危险因素是血缘关系(46%)。在健康婴儿人群中,16%的teoae失败。在新生儿重症监护室,30%的低危组和38%的高危组teoae失败。在ABR方面,高风险组、低风险组和健康组的失败率分别为12%、10%和8%。结论。使用TNHS会使患有永久性先天性听力损失(PCHL)的健康婴儿组中8%的新生儿失聪。使用UNHS将识别所有PCHL病例,允许早期干预和随访。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Targeted versus Universal Neonatal Hearing Screening in a Single Egyptian Center.

Aim. To compare targeted neonatal hearing screening (TNHS) and universal neonatal hearing screening (UNHS) since many developing countries, including Egypt, implement selective screening for high-risk neonates. Methods. 150 neonates were assessed; 50 full terms consecutively admitted to the well-baby nursery and 100 neonates consecutively admitted to neonatal intensive care unit (NICU), Ain Shams University. Patients were further subdivided into high-risk group which included 50 neonates with multiple risk factors for hearing loss and low risk group which included 50 neonates with only one risk factor. Transient evoked otoacoustic emissions (TEOAEs) were used for hearing screening. Auditory brain response (ABR) was performed 3 months later for failed TEOAEs. Results. The most frequent risk factor was consanguinity (46%). In the well-baby population, 16% failed TEOAEs. In the NICU, 30% of the low risk and 38% of the high risk groups failed TEOAEs. Regarding ABR, failed results were 12%, 10%, and 8% in the high-risk, low-risk, and healthy groups, respectively. Conclusion. The use of TNHS would have missed 8% of neonates from the well-baby group who actually had PCHL (permanent congenital hearing loss). The use of UNHS would identify all cases with PCHL, allowing for early intervention and follow-up.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信