Delay in the diagnosis of deafness in children. Justification for the establishment of screening models;Retraso en el diagnostico de hipoacusia en ninos. Justificacion para instaurar modelos de cribaje

Anales Espanoles de Pediatria

Volumn 51, Issue 1, 1999, Pages 49-52

  Morant Ventura, A ^a   Pitarch Ribes, Ma I ^a   García Callejo, F Javier ^a   Marco Algarra, J ^a  

^a HOSPITAL CLÍNICO UNIVERSITARIO   (Spain)

Author keywords

Early diagnosis; Infant hearing loss

Indexed keywords

ADOLESCENT; ARTICLE; CHILD; CONTROLLED STUDY; EARLY DIAGNOSIS; EVOKED AUDITORY RESPONSE; HEARING IMPAIRMENT; HUMAN; INFANT; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MODEL; PRIMARY MEDICAL CARE; SCREENING; AGE; AUDITORY SYSTEM EXAMINATION; CHILD HEALTH CARE; NEWBORN; ORGANIZATION AND MANAGEMENT; PERCEPTION DEAFNESS; PRESCHOOL CHILD; PRIMARY HEALTH CARE; RESIDENTIAL CARE; RISK FACTOR; SPAIN; STANDARD;

ADOLESCENT; AGE FACTORS; CATCHMENT AREA (HEALTH); CHILD; CHILD HEALTH SERVICES; CHILD, PRESCHOOL; DIAGNOSTIC TECHNIQUES, OTOLOGICAL; HEARING LOSS, SENSORINEURAL; HUMANS; INFANT; INFANT, NEWBORN; PRIMARY HEALTH CARE; RISK FACTORS; SPAIN;

EID: 0033161011     PISSN: 03024342     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Article

References (13)

1. Chouard C, Meyer B, Josset B, Buche JF. The effect of the acoustic nerve chronic electric stimulation upon the guinea pig cochlear nucleus development. Acta Otolaryngol 1983; 95:639-645.
2. Uziel A. Les implants cochleaires chez l'infant: acquisitions et controversies. Rev Laryngol 1991; 112:319-323.
3. Moushon JA, Van Ssluyters RC. Visual neural development. Annu Rev Psychol 1981; 32:477-522.
4. Hayes D, Northern JL. Hearing screening. En Hayes D, Northern JL, eds. Infants and Hearing. San Diego, London. Singular Publishing Group 1996: 213-232.
5. White KR, Behrens TR. The Rhode Island Hearing Assesment Project: Implications for universal newborn hearing screening. Semin in Hear 1993; 14:1-119.
6. Northern J, Hayes D. Universal screening for infant hearing impairment: necessary, beneficial and justifiable. Audiology 1994; 6, 2:10-13.
7. Robinette M. Evoked otoacustic emissions screening for infant hearing impairment: Made simple, relatively risk-free, beneficial and presently justified. Pediatrics 1994; 94:252-253.
8. Bess FH, Paradise JL. Universal screening for infant hearing: Not simple, not risk free, not necessarily beneficial and no presently justified. Pediatrics 1994; 98:330-334.
9. Schulmann Galambos C, Galambos R. Brainstem evoked response audiometry in newborn hearing screening. Arch Otolaryngol 1979; 105:86-90.
10. Oudesluys Murphy AM, Van Straaten HL, Bholasingh R, Van Zanten GA. Bilateral evoked otoacustic emissions in a child with bilateral profound hearing loss. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol 1996; 105:286-288.
11. Pappas D. A study of the high-risk registry for sensorineural hearing impairment. Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 1983; 91:41-44.
12. National Institutes of Health Consensus Statement. Early identification of hearing loss in infants and young children: Consensus development conference on early identification of hearing loss in infants and young children 1993; 11:1-3.
13. White K, Vohr BR, Behrens TR. Universal newborn hearing screening using transient evoked otoacoustic emissions: Results of the Rhode Island Hearing Assesment Project. Semin Hear 1993; 14:19-29.