Freitas Vanessa Sabino de, Alvarenga Kátia de Freitas, Bevilacqua Maria Cecilia, Martinez Maria Angelina Nardi, Costa Orozimbo Alves
Departamento de Fonoaudiologia da Faculdade de Odontologia de Bauru - Universidade de São Paulo.
Pro Fono. 2009 Jul-Sep;21(3):201-6. doi: 10.1590/s0104-56872009000300004.
having knowledge about the validity of procedures for newborn hearing screening (NHS) is fundamental, once the purpose of these programs is to identify all newborns with hearing loss at an acceptable cost.
to estimate the specificity and the false-positive rate of NHS protocols using transient evoked otoacoustic emissions (TEOAE) and automated auditory brainstem response (AABR).
participants were 200 newborns who were submitted to a hearing screening test between March and July 2006. Three protocols were analyzed: protocol 1, NHS was carried out in two steps using TEOAE; protocol 2, NHS was carried out in two steps using AABR; and protocol 3, NHS was carried out in one step, using the two procedures - testing with TEOAE followed by a retest with AABR for all the newborns who did not pass the TEOAE testing.
although there was no statistically significant difference when comparing the referral rates to audiological diagnosis obtained in protocols using TEOAE and AABR, the protocol using TEOAE referred four times more newborns. Protocol 3 presented the highest referral rate, with a statistically significant difference when compared to protocols 1 and 2.
the false-positive rate and consequently specificity were better for the protocol using AABR, followed respectively by the protocol using TEOAE and using both TEOAE and AABR.
了解新生儿听力筛查（NHS）程序的有效性至关重要，因为这些项目的目的是以可接受的成本识别所有听力损失的新生儿。
评估使用瞬态诱发耳声发射（TEOAE）和自动听性脑干反应（AABR）的NHS方案的特异性和假阳性率。
研究对象为200名于2006年3月至7月接受听力筛查测试的新生儿。分析了三种方案：方案1，使用TEOAE分两步进行NHS；方案2，使用AABR分两步进行NHS；方案3，一步完成NHS，即对所有未通过TEOAE测试的新生儿先进行TEOAE测试，然后再进行AABR复测。
虽然比较使用TEOAE和AABR的方案中转诊至听力学诊断的比例时，差异无统计学意义，但使用TEOAE的方案转诊的新生儿数量多出四倍。方案3的转诊率最高，与方案1和2相比，差异有统计学意义。
使用AABR的方案假阳性率及特异性更好，其次分别是使用TEOAE的方案以及同时使用TEOAE和AABR的方案。
