Comparison of currently available devices designed for newborn hearing screening using automated auditory brainstem and/or otoacoustic emission measurements
International Journal of Pediatric Otorhinolaryngology, ISSN: 0165-5876, Vol: 68, Issue: 7, Page: 927-934
2004
- 66Citations
- 59Captures
- 1Mentions
Metric Options: Counts1 Year3 YearSelecting the 1-year or 3-year option will change the metrics count to percentiles, illustrating how an article or review compares to other articles or reviews within the selected time period in the same journal. Selecting the 1-year option compares the metrics against other articles/reviews that were also published in the same calendar year. Selecting the 3-year option compares the metrics against other articles/reviews that were also published in the same calendar year plus the two years prior.
Example: if you select the 1-year option for an article published in 2019 and a metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019. If you select the 3-year option for the same article published in 2019 and the metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019, 2018 and 2017.
Citation Benchmarking is provided by Scopus and SciVal and is different from the metrics context provided by PlumX Metrics.
Example: if you select the 1-year option for an article published in 2019 and a metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019. If you select the 3-year option for the same article published in 2019 and the metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019, 2018 and 2017.
Citation Benchmarking is provided by Scopus and SciVal and is different from the metrics context provided by PlumX Metrics.
Metrics Details
- Citations66
- Citation Indexes64
- 64
- CrossRef58
- Policy Citations2
- 2
- Captures59
- Readers59
- 59
- Mentions1
- News Mentions1
- 1
Most Recent News
Outcomes of Universal Neonatal Hearing Screening Program in a Tertiary Care Hospital in Lahore
Keywords: Neonate, hearing screening, hearing impairment, early identification, Otoacoustic emission, outcomes. Introduction Hearing is a vital sense for humans, crucial for speech, language, and cognitive
Article Description
Objective: Suitability in clinical practise of three currently available devices designed for automated newborn hearing screening, one combining evoked otoacoustic emissions (EOAE) and automated auditory brain stem response (AABR), the Echoscreen-TDA from Fischer-Zoth, and two AABR screeners, the Algo 3 from Natus and the Beraphone MB11 from Maico, were tested prospectively. Methods: Transiently evoked otoacoustic emissions (TEOAE) and distortion product otoacoustic emissions (DPOAE) were measured in one ear of 150 healthy newborns using the Echoscreen-TDA. Three groups of 50 subjects each were tested additionally for AABR recordings either with Echoscreen-TDA, Algo 3 or Beraphone MB11. Measurements were performed after the second day of life. The following aspects were evaluated: (a) subject–instrumentation interface (b) test time (c) costs (unit price and costs for disposable material) and (d) pass rates. Results: Connecting the subjects to the device was the easiest for EOAE measurements with the Echoscreen-TDA, followed by AABR recordings with the Algo 3 and Echoscreen-TDA and were most difficult with the Beraphone MB11. The median test time on one ear was less than 30 s for EOAE measurements and 4–5 min for AABR recordings. Costs for the equipment and for disposable material were lowest for the Echoscreen-TDA and Beraphone MB11, respectively and highest for the Algo 3. Pass rates were highest with 98% for AABR recordings using the Algo 3 and lowest with 92% for AABR recordings using the Beraphone MB11, but differences were not statistically significant. Conclusions: All tested devices can be used for universal neonatal hearing screening. It was easier to connect the subject to the device and measurements were quicker for OAE than for AABR measurements. Echoscreen-TDA combines the two techniques and had the lowest costs for the AABR equipment. Algo 3 had the highest costs for the equipment and for disposable material, but it was highly reliable, and both ears can be tested simultaneously. Connecting the subject was the most difficult with the Beraphone MB11, but there were no disposable supply costs.
Bibliographic Details
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0165587604000709; http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijporl.2004.02.008; http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?partnerID=HzOxMe3b&scp=2942620390&origin=inward; http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15183584; https://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0165587604000709; https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijporl.2004.02.008
Elsevier BV
Provide Feedback
Have ideas for a new metric? Would you like to see something else here?Let us know