Skip to main content
Key Specialties
Cardiology Diabetology Endocrinology Gastroenterology Geriatrics and Gerontology Gynecology and Obstetrics Hematology Infectious Disease Internal Medicine Nephrology Neurology Oncology Pediatrics Respiratory Medicine Rheumatology Surgery
Congress Coverage
2024 ACC Congress 2023 ESMO Congress 2023 EASD Congress 2023 ERS Congress 2023 ESC Congress
Clinical Collections
Advances in Alzheimer’s

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on medication adherence

LIVE: Thursday 27th June 2024, 18:00-19:30 (CEST)
Join our expert panel to discover why you need to understand the drivers of non-adherence in your patients, and how you can optimize medication adherence in your clinics to drastically improve patient outcomes.
ADVANCED SEARCH
Log in
Top
BMC Pediatrics
Published in: BMC Pediatrics 1/2015

Open Access 01-12-2015 | Research article

Evaluating reporting and process quality of publications on UNHS: a systematic review of programmes

Authors: Pierpaolo Mincarone, Carlo Giacomo Leo, Saverio Sabina, Daniele Costantini, Francesco Cozzolino, John B. Wong, Giuseppe Latini

Published in: BMC Pediatrics | Issue 1/2015

Login to get access

Abstract

Background

Congenital hearing loss is one of the most frequent birth defects, and Early Detection and Intervention has been found to improve language outcomes. The American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) and the Joint Committee on Infant Hearing (JCIH) established quality of care process indicators and benchmarks for Universal Newborn Hearing Screening (UNHS). We have aggregated some of these indicators/benchmarks according to the three pillars of universality, timely detection and overreferral. When dealing with inter-comparison, relying on complete and standardised literature data becomes crucial.
The purpose of this paper is to verify whether literature data on UNHS programmes have included sufficient information to allow inter-programme comparisons according to the indicators considered.

Methods

We performed a systematic search identifying UNHS studies and assessing the quality of programmes.

Results

The identified 12 studies demonstrated heterogeneity in criteria for referring to further examinations during the screening phase and in identifying high-risk neonates, protocols, tests, staff, and testing environments. Our systematic review also highlighted substantial variability in reported performance data. In order to optimise the reporting of screening protocols and process performance, we propose a checklist. Another result is the difficulty in guaranteeing full respect for the criteria of universality, timely detection and overreferral.

Conclusions

Standardisation in reporting UNHS experiences may also have a positive impact on inter-program comparisons, hence favouring the emergence of recognised best practices.
Appendix
Available only for authorised users
Literature
1.
Barsky-Firkser L, Sun S. Universal newborn hearing screenings: a three-year experience. Pediatrics. 1997;99(6), E4.CrossRefPubMed
2.
Mehl AL, Thomson V. The Colorado newborn hearing screening project, 1992–1999: on the threshold of effective population-based universal newborn hearing screening. Pediatrics. 2002;109(1), E7.CrossRefPubMed
3.
Vartiainen E, Kemppinen P, Karjalainen S. Prevalence and etiology of bilateral sensorineural hearing impairment in a Finnish childhood population. Int J Pediatr Otorhinolaryngol. 1997;41(2):175–85.CrossRefPubMed
4.
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Healthy People 2010. In: With Understanding and Improving Health and Objectives for Improving Health, vol. 2. 2nd ed. Washington, D.C: U.S. Government Printing Office. November; 2000.
5.
6.
Norton SJ, Gorga MP, Widen JE, et al. Identification of neonatal hearing impairment: a multicenter investigation. Ear Hear. 2000;21(5):348–56.CrossRefPubMed
7.
Arehart KH, Yoshinaga-Itano C, Thomson V, Gabbard SA, Stredler BA. State of the states: The status of universal newborn screening, assessment, and intervention systems in 16 states. Am J Audiol. 1998;7:101–14.CrossRefPubMed
8.
Harrison M, Roush J. Age of suspicion, identification and intervention for infants and young children with hearing loss: A national study. Ear Hear. 1996;17:55–62.CrossRefPubMed
9.
Erenberg A, Lemons J, Sia C, Trunkel D, Ziring P. Newborn and Infant Hearing Loss: Detection and Intervention. Pediatrics. 1999;103(2):527–30.CrossRefPubMed
10.
Rach GH, Zielhuis GA, van den Broek P. The influence of chronic persistent otitis media with effusion on language development of 2- to 4-year-olds. Int J Pediatr Otorhinolaryngol. 1988;15:253–61.CrossRefPubMed
11.
Moeller MP, Osberger MJ, Eccarius M. Receptive Language Skills: Language and Learning Skills of Hearing-Impaired Children, vol. 23. Bethesda, Md: American Speech, Language and Hearing Association; Monographs of the American Speech, Language and Hearing Association; 1986. p. 41–53.
12.
Allen TE. Patterns of academic achievement among hearing impaired students: 1974 and 1983. In: Schildroth A, Karchmer AM, editors. Deaf Children in America. Boston, Mass: College-Hill Press; 1986. p. 161–206.
13.
Davis A, Hind S. The impact of hearing impairment: a global health problem. Int J Pediatr Otorhinolaryngol. 1999;49 suppl 1:S51–4.CrossRefPubMed
14.
15.
Vostanis P, Hayes M, Feu MD, Warren J. Detection of behavioural and emotional problems in deaf children and adolescents: comparison of two rating scales. Child Care Health Dev. 1997;23(3):233–46.CrossRefPubMed
16.
Thomas MSC, Johnson MH. New advances in understanding sensitive periods in brain development. Curr Dir Psychol. 2008;17:1–5.CrossRef
17.
Pimperton H, Blythe H, Kreppner J, Mahon M, Peacock JL, Stevenson J, Terlektsi M, Worsfold S, Ming Yuen H, Kennedy CR. The impact of universal newborn hearing screening on long-term literacy outcomes: a prospective cohort study. Arch Dis Child. doi:10.​1136/​archdischild-2014-307516.
18.
19.
Nelson HD, Bougatsos C, Nygren P, 2001 US Preventive Services Task Force. Universal newborn hearing screening: systematic review to update the 2001 US Preventive Services Task Force Recommendation. Pediatrics. 2008;122(3):689.
20.
Wolff R, Hommerich J, Riemsma R, Antes G, Lange S, Kleijnen J. Hearing screening in newborns: systematic review of accuracy, effectiveness, and effects of interventions after screening. Arch Dis Child. 2010;95(2):130–5.CrossRefPubMed
21.
Kasai N, Fukushima K, Omori K, Sugaya A, Ojima T. Effects of early identification and intervention on language development in Japanese children with prelingual severe to profound hearing impairment. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol Suppl. 2012;202:16–20.CrossRefPubMed
22.
Korver AM, Konings S, Dekker FW, et al. DECIBEL Collaborative Study Group. Newborn hearing screening vs later hearing screening and developmental outcomes in children with permanent childhood hearing impairment. JAMA. 2010;304(15):1701–8.CrossRefPubMed
23.
McCann DC, Worsfold S, Law CM, et al. Reading and communication skills after universal newborn screening for permanent childhood hearing impairment. Arch Dis Child. 2009;94(4):293–7.CrossRefPubMed
24.
25.
Joint Committee on Infant Hearing 1994 Position Statement. American Academy of Pediatrics Joint Committee on Infant Hearing. Pediatrics. 1995;95(1):152–6.
26.
NIH. Early Identification of Hearing Impairment in Infants and Young Children. NIH Consens Statement. 1993;11(1):1–24.
27.
Joint Committee on Infant Hearing. Year 2000 Position Statement: Principles and Guidelines for Early Hearing Detection and Intervention Programs. Pediatrics. 2000;106(4):798–817.CrossRef
28.
Joint Committee on Infant Hearing. Year 2007 Position Statement: Principles and Guidelines for Early Hearing Detection and Intervention Programs. Pediatrics. 2007;120(4):898–921.CrossRef
29.
O’Donnell NS, Galinsky E. Measuring Progress and Results in Early Childhood System Development. New York, NY: Families and Work Institute; 1998.
30.
Wheeler DJ, Chambers DS. Understanding Statistical Process Control. Knoxville, TN: SPC Press, Inc.; 1986.
31.
Tharpe AM, Clayton EW. Newborn hearing screening: Issues in legal liability and quality assurance. Am J Audiol. 1997;6:5–12.CrossRef
32.
Liberati A, Altman DG, Tetzlaff J, Mulrow C, Gøtzsche PC, John PA. & reporting The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate healthcare interventions : explanation and elaboration. BMJ Br Med J. 2009. 339:b2700. doi:10.​1136/​bmj.​b2700.
33.
Bevilacqua MC, Alvarenga Kde F, Costa OA, Moret AL. The universal newborn hearing screening in Brazil: From identification to intervention. Int J Pediatr Otorhinolaryngol. 2010;74(5):510–5.CrossRefPubMed
34.
Calevo MG, Mezzano P, Zullino E, Padovani P, Serra G, STERN Group. Ligurian experience on neonatal hearing screening: clinical and epidemiological aspects. Acta Paediatr. 2007;96(11):1592–9.CrossRefPubMed
35.
Cebulla M, Shehata-Dieler W. ABR-based newborn hearing screening with MB11 BERAphone1 using an optimized chirp for acoustical stimulation. Int J Pediatr Otorhinolaryngol. 2012;76(4):536–43.CrossRefPubMed
36.
De Capua B, Costantini D, Martufi C, Latini G, Gentile M, De Felice C. Universal neonatal hearing screening: the Siena (Italy) experience on 19,700 newborns. Early Hum Dev. 2007;83:601–6.CrossRefPubMed
37.
Guastini L, Mora R, Dellepiane M, Santomauro V, Mora M, Rocca A, et al. Evaluation of an automated auditory brainstem response in a multi-stage infant hearing screening. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol. 2010;267(8):1199–205.CrossRefPubMed
38.
Habib HS, Abdelgaffar H. Neonatal hearing screening with transient evoked otoacoustic emissions in Western Saudi Arabia. Int J Pediatr Otorhinolaryngol. 2005;69(6):839–42.CrossRefPubMed
39.
Kennedy C, McCann D, Campbell MJ, Kimm L, Thornton R. Universal newborn screening for permanent childhood hearing impairment: an 8-year follow-up of a controlled trial. Lancet. 2005;366(9486):660–2.CrossRefPubMed
40.
Korres S, Nikolopoulos TP, Peraki EE, et al. Outcomes and Efficacy of Newborn Hearing Screening: Strengths and Weaknesses (Success or Failure?). Laryngoscope. 2008;118(7):1253–6.CrossRefPubMed
41.
Lin HC, Shu MT, Lee KS, Lin HY, Lin G. Reducing False Positives in Newborn Hearing Screening Program: How and Why. Otol Neurotol. 2007;28(6):788–92.CrossRefPubMed
42.
Rohlfs AK, Wiesner T, Drews H, Müller F, Breitfuss A, Schiller R, et al. Interdisciplinary approach to design, performance, and quality management in a multicenter newborn hearing screening project. Introduction, methods, and results of the newborn hearing screening in Hamburg (Part I). Eur J Pediatr. 2010;169(11):1353–60.CrossRefPubMed
43.
Tatli MM, Bulent Serbetcioglu M, Duman N, et al. Feasibility of neonatal hearing screening program with two-stage transient otoacoustic emissions in Turkey. Pediatr Int. 2007;49(2):161–6.CrossRefPubMed
44.
Tsuchiya H, Goto K, Yunohara N, et al. Newborn hearing screening in a single private Japanese obstetric hospital. Pediatr Int. 2006;48(6):604–7.CrossRefPubMed
45.
Wessex Universal Neonatal Hearing Screening Trial Group. Controlled trial of universal neonatal screening for early identification of permanent childhood hearing impairment. Lancet. 1998;352(9145):1957–64.CrossRef
46.
Olusanya BO, Somefun AO, de Swanepoel W. The Need for Standardization of Methods for Worldwide Infant Hearing Screening: A Systematic Review. Laryngoscope. 2008;118(10):1830–6.CrossRefPubMed
47.
Kemper AR, Downs SM. Making informed policy decisions about newborn hearing screening. Acad Pediatr. 2012;12(3):157–8.CrossRefPubMed
48.
Russ SA, Hanna D, DesGeorges J, Forsman I. Improving follow-up to newborn hearing screening: a learning collaborative. Pediatrics. 2010;126:S59–69.CrossRefPubMed
49.
Shulman S, Besculides M, Saltzman A, Ireys H, White KR, Forsman I. Evaluation of the universal newborn hearing screening and intervention program. Pediatrics. 2010;126 Suppl 1:S19–27.CrossRefPubMed
50.
American Academy of Pediatrics, Council on Children With Disabilities, Section on Developmental Behavioral Pediatrics, Bright Futures Steering Committee, Medical Home Initiatives for Children With Special Needs Project Advisory Committee. Identifying infants and young children with developmental disorders in the medical home: an algorithm for developmental surveillance and screening. Pediatrics. 2006;118:405–20.CrossRef
51.
Agency for Health Care Policy and Research. Using Clinical Practice Guidelines to Evaluate Quality of Care: Vol II—Methods. Rockville, MD: US Department of Health and Human Services, Public Health Service; 1995. AHCPR publication 95–0046.
Metadata
Title
Evaluating reporting and process quality of publications on UNHS: a systematic review of programmes
Authors
Pierpaolo Mincarone
Carlo Giacomo Leo
Saverio Sabina
Daniele Costantini
Francesco Cozzolino
John B. Wong
Giuseppe Latini
Publication date
01-12-2015
Publisher
BioMed Central
Published in
BMC Pediatrics / Issue 1/2015
Electronic ISSN: 1471-2431
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1186/s12887-015-0404-x

Other articles of this Issue 1/2015

BMC Pediatrics 1/2015 Go to the issue

Study protocol

The ProVIDe study: the impact of protein intravenous nutrition on development in extremely low birthweight babies

Research article

Acute and preventive management of anaphylaxis in German primary school and kindergarten children

Research article

Intraventricular hemorrhage in asphyxiated newborns treated with hypothermia: a look into incidence, timing and risk factors

Research article

Individual and contextual factors associated with verbal bullying among Brazilian adolescents

Research article

Children’s perceptions about medicines: individual differences and taste

Research article

Using height-for-age differences (HAD) instead of height-for-age z-scores (HAZ) for the meaningful measurement of population-level catch-up in linear growth in children less than 5 years of age