Comparative Analysis of 8 200 Beijing and 1 940 Xining Newborn Hearing Screening Results

Liu Junxiu,Ma Furong,Ma Xinchun,Yang Ying,Gu Yalan,Zhou Na,Zhao Yanping,Wang Min
DOI: https://doi.org/10.3969/j.issn.1006-7299.2012.05.002
2012-01-01
Abstract:Objective To conduct a comparative analysis of the 8 200 and 1 940 the universal newborn hearing screening(UNHS) results obtained in Beijing and Xining,respectively.Methods The newborns were selected Peking University third hospital and Qinghai University affiliated hospital from January 1,2009 to October 30,2011 and their hearing screening and diagnosis data were retrospectively collected.5 644 normal newborn infants and 2 556 infants with high risk of hearing impairments were born in Peking University third hospital.1 354 normal infants and 586 high risk infants were born in Qinghai University affiliated hospital.Transiently otoacoustic emission(TEOAE) was used in two hospital for the first and the second screenings.Moreover,the babies with high risk factors at Peking University third hospital recieved additional autoauditory brainstem response(AABR) test.Results 100% newborn infants were screened in 1st stage UNHS in Peking University third hospital,and 83.39% newborn infants in 2nd stage UNHS.In contrast,85.98% newborn infants were screened in 1st stage UNHS,and 68.21% newborn infants as 2nd stage UNHS in Qinghai University affiliated hospital.There were significant differences between the two groups(p <0.05).25 normal infants and 35 high risk infants in Peking University were finally diagnosed with congenital hearing loss.2 normal infants and 5 high risk infants in Qinghai University affiliated hospital were finally diagnosed with congenital hearing loss.Conclusion UNHS in Peking University from 2009 to 2011 met the standard recommended,while UNHS in Qinghai University affiliated hospital failed or was close to the standard.We should further strengthen education and follow-up to improve UNHS.
What problem does this paper attempt to address?