Effectiveness of universal newborn hearing screening : a systematic review and meta-analysis

Show simple item record

dc.contributor.author Edmond, Karen
dc.contributor.author Chadha, Shelly
dc.contributor.author Hunnicutt, Cynthia
dc.contributor.author Strobel, Natalie
dc.contributor.author Manchaiah, Vinaya
dc.contributor.author Yoshinaga-Itano, Christine
dc.date.accessioned 2023-08-21T11:53:22Z
dc.date.available 2023-08-21T11:53:22Z
dc.date.issued 2022-10
dc.description.abstract BACKGROUND : Permanent bilateral hearing loss (PBHL) is a serious condition in newborns, with a prevalence of at least one per 1000 live births. However, there has been no recent systematic review and meta-analysis of the effectiveness of universal newborn hearing screening programs (UNHS). METHODS : We registered our study protocol on PROSPERO CRD42020175451. Primary outcomes were any identification of PBHL (ie, PBHL diagnosed at any time), age of identification of PBHL, and neurodevelopment. Two reviewers searched standard databases to March 2022 and extracted data. We used fixed and random effects meta-analysis to pool data and graded the certainty of evidence using standard methods. RESULTS : The search retrieved 2834 records. We identified five studies reporting on the effects of UNHS vs no UNHS in 1 023 610 newborns. The relative risk of being identified with PBHL before nine months in infants with UNHS compared to infants without UNHS was 3.28 (95% confidence interval (95% CI) = 1.84, 5.85, one study, 1 023 497 newborns, low certainty evidence). The mean difference in the age of identification of PBHL in infants with UNHS compared to infants without UNHS was 13.2 months earlier (95% CI = -26.3, -0.01, two studies, 197 newborns, very low certainty evidence). The relative risk of infants eventually being identified with PBHL in infants with UNHS compared to infants without UNHS was 1.01 (95% CI = 0.89, 1.14, three studies, 1 023 497 newborns, low certainty evidence). At the latest follow-up at 3-8 years, the standardised mean difference (SMD) in receptive language development between infants with UNHS compared to infants without UNHS was 0.60 z scores (95% CI = 0.07, 1.13, one study, 101 children, low certainty evidence) and the mean difference in develop developmental quotients was 7.72 (95% CI = -0.03, 15.47, three studies, 334 children, very low certainty evidence). The SMD in expressive language development was 0.39 z scores (95% CI = -0.20, 0.97, one study, 87 children, low certainty evidence) and the mean difference in developmental quotients was 10.10 scores (95% CI = 1.47, 18.73, 3 studies, 334 children, very low certainty evidence). CONCLUSIONS : UNHS programs result in earlier identification of PBHL and may improve neurodevelopment. UNHS should be implemented across high-, middle-, and low-income countries. en_US
dc.description.department Speech-Language Pathology and Audiology en_US
dc.description.librarian am2023 en_US
dc.description.sponsorship The World Health Organization, Geneva. en_US
dc.description.uri http://www.jogh.org en_US
dc.identifier.citation Universal Newborn Hearing Screening (UNHS) review group, Edmond, K., Chadha, S., Hunnicutt, C., Strobel, N., Manchaiah, V., Yoshinga-Itano C. Effectiveness of universal newborn hearing screening: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Journal of Global Health 2022;12:12006. doi : 10.7189/jogh.12.12006. en_US
dc.identifier.issn 2047-2978 (print)
dc.identifier.issn 2047-2986 (online)
dc.identifier.other 10.7189/jogh.12.12006
dc.identifier.uri http://hdl.handle.net/2263/91998
dc.language.iso en en_US
dc.publisher International Society of Global Health en_US
dc.rights © World Health Organization [2021]. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution IGO License. en_US
dc.subject Newborn en_US
dc.subject Permanent bilateral hearing loss (PBHL) en_US
dc.subject Hearing screening programs (UNHS) en_US
dc.subject Risk en_US
dc.subject SDG-03: Good health and well-being en_US
dc.title Effectiveness of universal newborn hearing screening : a systematic review and meta-analysis en_US
dc.type Article en_US


Files in this item

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record