Suppr超能文献

降低新生儿听力筛查项目中的假阳性:方法与原因

reducing false positives in newborn hearing screening program: how and why.

作者信息

Lin Hung-Ching, Shu Min-Tsan, Lee Kuo-Sheng, Lin Huang-Yu, Lin Grace

机构信息

Department of Otolaryngology, Hearing & Speech Center, Mackay Memorial Hospital, Taipei, Taiwan.

出版信息

Otol Neurotol. 2007 Sep;28(6):788-92. doi: 10.1097/mao.0b013e3180cab754.

Abstract

OBJECTIVE

To compare the initial referral rate, the accurate identification rate of congenital hearing loss, and the cost between one step with transient evoked otoacoustic emissions (TEOAEs), two steps with TEOAE and automated auditory brainstem response (AABR), and one step with AABR in newborn hearing screening program. The aim of this study is to compare their efficacy between our three different protocols and to see which one is most cost-effective.

STUDY DESIGN

From November 1998 to April 2006, 25,588 healthy newborns were screened for hearing loss in Mackay Memorial Hospital, Taipei. In the periods from November 1998 to January 2004, from February 2004 to February 2005, and from March 2005 to April 2006, the screening tools used were TEOAE alone (n = 18,260), TEOAE plus AABR (n = 3,540), and AABR (n = 3,788), respectively.

RESULTS

A statistically significant decrease in referral rate was achieved in the group using AABR as screening tools when compared with TEOAE plus AABR and TEOAE alone (0.8 versus 1.6 versus 5.8%). The accurate identification rate of congenital hearing loss was 0.42% in AABR protocol, 0.25% in TEOAE and AABR protocol, and 0.45% in TEOAE protocol, which was not statistically significant. The total direct costs (including predischarge screening and postdischarge follow-up costs) per screening were US $10.04 for the program using TEOAE alone, US $8.60 for TEOAE plus AABR, and US $7.33 for AABR. The intangible cost (parental anxiety) was much higher in the earlier program due to higher referral rate.

CONCLUSION

In the efficacy of the hearing screening program using the one-step TEOAE, two-step TEOAE and AABR, and one-step AABR programs, the latter significantly decreased the referral rate from 5.8, to 1.6, and to 0.8%. No significant difference was noted between their accurate identification rates of congenital hearing loss. The total costs, including expenditures and intangible cost, were much lower in the protocol with AABR due to reduction in false positives.

摘要

目的

比较在新生儿听力筛查项目中,采用瞬态诱发耳声发射(TEOAEs)一步法、TEOAEs与自动听性脑干反应(AABR)两步法以及AABR一步法的初始转诊率、先天性听力损失的准确识别率和成本。本研究的目的是比较这三种不同方案的效果,看看哪种方案最具成本效益。

研究设计

1998年11月至2006年4月,台北市马偕纪念医院对25588名健康新生儿进行了听力损失筛查。在1998年11月至2004年1月、2004年2月至2005年2月以及2005年3月至2006年4月期间,使用的筛查工具分别为单独的TEOAE(n = 18260)、TEOAE加AABR(n = 3540)和AABR(n = 3788)。

结果

与TEOAE加AABR以及单独使用TEOAE的组相比,使用AABR作为筛查工具的组转诊率有统计学意义的显著下降(分别为0.8%、1.6%和5.8%)。AABR方案中先天性听力损失的准确识别率为0.42%,TEOAE和AABR方案中为0.25%,TEOAE方案中为0.45%,差异无统计学意义。单独使用TEOAE的项目每次筛查的总直接成本(包括出院前筛查和出院后随访成本)为10.04美元,TEOAE加AABR为8.60美元,AABR为7.33美元。由于转诊率较高,早期项目中的无形(父母焦虑)成本要高得多。

结论

在使用一步法TEOAE、两步法TEOAE和AABR以及一步法AABR的听力筛查项目效果方面,后者显著降低了转诊率,从5.8%降至1.6%,再降至0.8%。它们在先天性听力损失的准确识别率方面没有显著差异。由于假阳性减少,包括支出和无形成本在内的总成本在AABR方案中要低得多。

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验