A comparison of audiometric and objective methods in hearing screening of school children. A preliminary study

International Journal of Pediatric Otorhinolaryngology

Volumn 75, Issue 4, 2011, Pages 483-488

  Sliwa L ^a   Hatzopoulos, S ^b   Kochanek, K ^a   Pilka A ^a   Senderski, A ^a   Skarzynski P H ^c  

^a INSTITUTE OF PHYSIOLOGY AND PATHOLOGY OF HEARING   (Poland)

^b UNIVERSITY OF FERRARA   (Italy)

^c Institute of Sense Organs   (Poland)

Author keywords

Audiometry; Automated audiometry; Hearing screening; Otoacoustic emissions; Tympanometry

Indexed keywords

ADOLESCENT; ARTICLE; AUDITORY SCREENING; AUTOMATION; CHILD; CONTROLLED STUDY; FEASIBILITY STUDY; FEMALE; HUMAN; HUMAN EXPERIMENT; IMPEDANCE AUDIOMETRY; INTERMETHOD COMPARISON; MALE; OTOACOUSTIC EMISSION; PREDICTIVE VALUE; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PURE TONE AUDIOMETRY; SCHOOL CHILD; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY; TYMPANOMETRY;

ACOUSTIC IMPEDANCE TESTS; ADOLESCENT; AGE DISTRIBUTION; AUDIOMETRY; AUDIOMETRY, PURE-TONE; CHILD; COHORT STUDIES; FEMALE; HEARING DISORDERS; HEARING TESTS; HUMANS; MALE; MASS SCREENING; POLAND; PREVALENCE; SCHOOL HEALTH SERVICES; SEX DISTRIBUTION; STUDENTS;

EID: 79952738123     PISSN: 01655876     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.ijporl.2010.12.024     Document Type: Article

References (26)

1. Ciorba A., Hatzopoulos S., Busi M., Petruccelli J., Martini A. The universal newborn hearing screening program at the university hospital of Ferrara: focus on solutions and Pitfalls. Int. J. Pediatr. Otorhinolaryngol. 2008, 72:807-816.
2. Mason J.A., Hermann K.R. Universal infant hearing screening by automated auditory brainstem response measurement. Pediatrics 1998, 101:221-228.
3. Fitzaland R.E., Zink G.D. A comparative study of hearing screening procedures. Ear Hear. 1984, 5:205-210.
4. Nozza R.J., Sanbo D.L., Mandel E.M. A role for otoacoustic emissions in screening for hearing impairment and middle ear disorders in school-age children. Ear Hear. 1997, 18:227-239.
5. Olusanya B. Early detection of hearing impairment in a developing country: what options?. Audiology 2001, 40:141-147.
6. Driscoll C., Kei J., McPherson B. Outcomes of transient evoked otoacoustic emission testing in 6-year-old school children. A comparison with pure tone screening and tympanometry. Int. J. Pediatr. Otorhinolaryngol. 2001, 57:67-76.
7. Lyons A., Kei J., Driscoll C. Distortion product otoacoustic emissions in children at school entry: a comparison with pure-tone screening and tympanometry results. J. Am. Acad. Audiol. 2004, 15:702-715.
8. Bamford J., Fortnum H., Bristow K., Smith J., Vamvakas G., Davies L., et al. Current practice, accuracy, effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of the school entry hearing screen. Health Technol. Assess. 2007, 11:1-46.
9. Kochanek K., Sliwa L., Zajac J., Skarzynski H. A universal computer audiometer for objective hearing testing and screening. Proceedings of the IEEE International Workshop on Medical Instrumentation and Applications, MeMeA 2007.
10. Kochanek K., Sliwa L., Coninx F., Lorens A., Zajac J., Skarzynski H. Universal computer audiometer for school age children hearing screening. 29th International Congress of Audiology 2008.
11. Savastano M., Marioni G., de Filippis C. Tinnitus in children without hearing impairment. Int. J. Pediatr. Otorhinolaryngol. 2009, 73(Suppl. 1):S13-S15.
12. Shetye A., Kennedy V. Tinnitus in children: an uncommon symptom?. Arch. Dis. Child. 2010, 95:645-648.
13. Skarzynski H., Kochanek K., Niedzielska G., Rogowski M., Kurkowski M., Ogonowska G. Organization of hearing screening program in seven provinces of Eastern Poland. 29th International Congress of Audiology 2008.
14. Yantis P. Puretone, air-conduction threshold testing. Handbook of Clinical Audiology 2002, 97-108. Lippincott Williams & Wilkins. fifth edition. J. Katz (Ed.).
15. SVANTEK: four channels sound and vibration analyser with time domain signal recording, http://svantek.com/sound-vibration-analysers.html.
16. Holtby I., Forster D.P. Evaluation of pure-tone audiometry and impedance screening in infants. J. Epidemiol. Community Health 1992, (46):21-25.
17. Holtby I., Forster D.P., Kumar U. Pure tone audiometry and impedance screening of school entrant children by nurses: evaluation in a practical setting. J. Epidemiol. Community Health 1997, 51:711-715.
18. Sabo M.P., Winston R., Macias J.D. Comparison of pure tone and transient otoacoustic emissions screening in a grade school population. Am. J. Otolaryngol. 2000, 21:88-91.
19. McPherson B., Law M.M., Wong Ms. Hearing screening for school children: comparison of low-cost, computer-based and conventional audiometry. Child Care Health Dev. 2010, 36:323-331.
20. Active processes and otoacoustic emissions. Springer Handbook of Auditory Research 2008, Springer, New York. G.A. Manley, R.R. Fay, A.N. Popper (Eds.).
21. Bess F.H., Dodd-Murphy J., Parker R.A. Children with minimal sensorineural hearing loss: prevalence, education performance and functional status. Ear Hear. 1998, 19:339-354.
22. Kennedy C., McCann D., Campbell M.J., Law C., Mullee M., Petrou S. Language ability after early detection of permanent childhood hearing impairment. N. Engl. J. Med. 2006, 353:2131-2141.
23. Hatzopoulos S., Petruccelli J., Ciorba A., Martini A. Optimizing otoacoustic emission protocols for a UNHS program. Audiol. Neurootol. 2009, 14:7-16.
24. Sliwa L., Kochanek K., Pilka A., Senderski A., Sulkowski W., Skarzynski H. Assessment of usefulness of objective and audiometric methods in hearing screening of school children. 9th EFAS Congress, Puerto de la Cruz, Tenerife, 21-24 June 2009.
25. Heckerling P.S. Confidence in diagnostic testing. J. Gen. Intern. Med. 1988, 3:604-606.
26. Monsour J.M., Evans A.T., Kupper L.L. Confidence intervals for post-test probability. Stat. Med. 1991, 10:443-456.