Cargando…

Comparing the clinical effectiveness of different new-born hearing screening strategies. A decision analysis

BACKGROUND: Children with congenital hearing impairment benefit from early detection and treatment. At present, no model exists which explicitly quantifies the effectiveness of universal newborn hearing screening (UNHS) versus other programme alternatives in terms of early diagnosis. It has yet to b...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Grill, Eva, Hessel, Franz, Siebert, Uwe, Schnell-Inderst, Petra, Kunze, Silke, Nickisch, Andreas, Wasem, Jürgen
Formato: Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2005
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC549034/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15679901
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1471-2458-5-12
_version_ 1782122379200167936
author Grill, Eva
Hessel, Franz
Siebert, Uwe
Schnell-Inderst, Petra
Kunze, Silke
Nickisch, Andreas
Wasem, Jürgen
author_facet Grill, Eva
Hessel, Franz
Siebert, Uwe
Schnell-Inderst, Petra
Kunze, Silke
Nickisch, Andreas
Wasem, Jürgen
author_sort Grill, Eva
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: Children with congenital hearing impairment benefit from early detection and treatment. At present, no model exists which explicitly quantifies the effectiveness of universal newborn hearing screening (UNHS) versus other programme alternatives in terms of early diagnosis. It has yet to be considered whether early diagnosis (within the first few months) of hearing impairment is of importance with regard to the further development of the child compared with effects resulting from a later diagnosis. The objective was to systematically compare two screening strategies for the early detection of new-born hearing disorders, UNHS and risk factor screening, with no systematic screening regarding their influence on early diagnosis. METHODS: Design: Clinical effectiveness analysis using a Markov Model. Data Sources: Systematic literature review, empirical data survey, and expert opinion. Target Population: All newborn babies. Time scale: 6, 12 and 120 months. Perspective: Health care system. Compared Strategies: UNHS, Risk factor screening (RS), no systematic screening (NS). Outcome Measures: Quality weighted detected child months (QCM). RESULTS: UNHS detected 644 QCM up until the age of 6 months (72,2%). RS detected 393 child months (44,1%) and no systematic screening 152 child months (17,0%). UNHS detected 74,3% and 86,7% weighted child months at 12 and 120 months, RS 48,4% and 73,3%, NS 23,7% and 60,6%. At the age of 6 months UNHS identified approximately 75% of all children born with hearing impairment, RS 50% and NS 25%. At the time of screening UNHS marked 10% of screened healthy children for further testing (false positives), RS 2%. UNHS demonstrated higher effectiveness even under a wide range of relevant parameters. The model was insensitive to test parameters within the assumed range but results varied along the prevalence of hearing impairment. CONCLUSION: We have shown that UNHS is able to detect hearing impairment at an earlier age and more accurately than selective RS. Further research should be carried out to establish the effects of hearing loss on the quality of life of an individual, its influence on school performance and career achievement and the differences made by early fitting of a hearing aid on these factors.
format Text
id pubmed-549034
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2005
publisher BioMed Central
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-5490342005-02-18 Comparing the clinical effectiveness of different new-born hearing screening strategies. A decision analysis Grill, Eva Hessel, Franz Siebert, Uwe Schnell-Inderst, Petra Kunze, Silke Nickisch, Andreas Wasem, Jürgen BMC Public Health Research Article BACKGROUND: Children with congenital hearing impairment benefit from early detection and treatment. At present, no model exists which explicitly quantifies the effectiveness of universal newborn hearing screening (UNHS) versus other programme alternatives in terms of early diagnosis. It has yet to be considered whether early diagnosis (within the first few months) of hearing impairment is of importance with regard to the further development of the child compared with effects resulting from a later diagnosis. The objective was to systematically compare two screening strategies for the early detection of new-born hearing disorders, UNHS and risk factor screening, with no systematic screening regarding their influence on early diagnosis. METHODS: Design: Clinical effectiveness analysis using a Markov Model. Data Sources: Systematic literature review, empirical data survey, and expert opinion. Target Population: All newborn babies. Time scale: 6, 12 and 120 months. Perspective: Health care system. Compared Strategies: UNHS, Risk factor screening (RS), no systematic screening (NS). Outcome Measures: Quality weighted detected child months (QCM). RESULTS: UNHS detected 644 QCM up until the age of 6 months (72,2%). RS detected 393 child months (44,1%) and no systematic screening 152 child months (17,0%). UNHS detected 74,3% and 86,7% weighted child months at 12 and 120 months, RS 48,4% and 73,3%, NS 23,7% and 60,6%. At the age of 6 months UNHS identified approximately 75% of all children born with hearing impairment, RS 50% and NS 25%. At the time of screening UNHS marked 10% of screened healthy children for further testing (false positives), RS 2%. UNHS demonstrated higher effectiveness even under a wide range of relevant parameters. The model was insensitive to test parameters within the assumed range but results varied along the prevalence of hearing impairment. CONCLUSION: We have shown that UNHS is able to detect hearing impairment at an earlier age and more accurately than selective RS. Further research should be carried out to establish the effects of hearing loss on the quality of life of an individual, its influence on school performance and career achievement and the differences made by early fitting of a hearing aid on these factors. BioMed Central 2005-01-31 /pmc/articles/PMC549034/ /pubmed/15679901 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1471-2458-5-12 Text en Copyright © 2005 Grill et al; licensee BioMed Central Ltd. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0 This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License ( (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0) ), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
spellingShingle Research Article
Grill, Eva
Hessel, Franz
Siebert, Uwe
Schnell-Inderst, Petra
Kunze, Silke
Nickisch, Andreas
Wasem, Jürgen
Comparing the clinical effectiveness of different new-born hearing screening strategies. A decision analysis
title Comparing the clinical effectiveness of different new-born hearing screening strategies. A decision analysis
title_full Comparing the clinical effectiveness of different new-born hearing screening strategies. A decision analysis
title_fullStr Comparing the clinical effectiveness of different new-born hearing screening strategies. A decision analysis
title_full_unstemmed Comparing the clinical effectiveness of different new-born hearing screening strategies. A decision analysis
title_short Comparing the clinical effectiveness of different new-born hearing screening strategies. A decision analysis
title_sort comparing the clinical effectiveness of different new-born hearing screening strategies. a decision analysis
topic Research Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC549034/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15679901
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1471-2458-5-12
work_keys_str_mv AT grilleva comparingtheclinicaleffectivenessofdifferentnewbornhearingscreeningstrategiesadecisionanalysis
AT hesselfranz comparingtheclinicaleffectivenessofdifferentnewbornhearingscreeningstrategiesadecisionanalysis
AT siebertuwe comparingtheclinicaleffectivenessofdifferentnewbornhearingscreeningstrategiesadecisionanalysis
AT schnellinderstpetra comparingtheclinicaleffectivenessofdifferentnewbornhearingscreeningstrategiesadecisionanalysis
AT kunzesilke comparingtheclinicaleffectivenessofdifferentnewbornhearingscreeningstrategiesadecisionanalysis
AT nickischandreas comparingtheclinicaleffectivenessofdifferentnewbornhearingscreeningstrategiesadecisionanalysis
AT wasemjurgen comparingtheclinicaleffectivenessofdifferentnewbornhearingscreeningstrategiesadecisionanalysis