A systematic review of newborn and childhood hearing screening around the world: comparison and quality assessment of guidelines

BACKGROUND: This study aimed to assess the quality of global guidelines or consensus statements for newborn and childhood hearing screening, as well as to compare various guidelines between other countries and China. METHODS: A PROSPERO registered systematic review (number CRD42021242198) was conducted. Multiple electronic databases and government websites including PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science, CENTRAL, Cochrane Library, and BMJ Best Practice were searched from inception until May 2021. The latest national and international guidelines, consensus statements, technical specifications, and recommendations regarding newborn or childhood hearing screening that were published in Chinese or English medical journals or elsewhere with the full version available online. The following information was extracted independently by two reviewers for comparative analysis: titles, authors, publication year, country, the source organization, and main key recommendations using systems for assigning the level of evidence and strength of recommendations. The quality of the guidelines was assessed by three independent reviewers using the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation, 2nd edition. Intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs) were calculated to assess among-reviewer agreement. RESULTS: We assessed 15 newborn and 6 childhood hearing screening guidelines, respectively. Most newborn guidelines recommend the 1–3-6 guidelines and pre-discharge screening; however, the specific screening times differ. 93.33% of newborn hearing guidelines recommend “primary screening-re-screening-diagnosis-intervention” for well-babies while 73.33% of the guidelines recommend "initial screening-diagnosis-intervention" for newborns in neonatal intensive care unit (NICU); 33.33% of the newborn hearing guidelines recommended initial screening coverage of > 95% while 46.66% did not mention it. Further, 26.66% of the newborn hearing guidelines recommended a referral rate to diagnosis within 4% while 60% did not mention it. Regarding childhood hearing screening guidelines, the screening populations differed across guidelines (age range: 0–9 years); most guidelines recommend pediatric hearing screening for all preschoolers. Only 50% of the guidelines specify screening and re-screening techniques, including pure-tone hearing screening, OAE, tympanometry, and others. The “Clarity of Presentation” domain achieved the highest mean score, and the lowest was “Editorial Independence” both in newborn and childhood guidelines. Overall score of newborn hearing screening guidelines ranged from 3 (2018 Europe) to 7 (2019 America), with an average score of 5.33. Average score of childhood hearing screening guidelines was 4.78, with the score ranging from 4 (2017 England, 2012 Europe, 2016 WHO) to 6.67 (2011 America). ICC analysis revealed excellent agreement across 21 guidelines (> 0.75). CONCLUSIONS: These findings indicated newborn hearing screening guidelines had superior quality over childhood ones. Comparative analysis suggested that recommendations of the Chinese newborn and pediatric hearing screening protocols are consistent with the mainstream international opinion. Moreover, this analysis demonstrated that “Editorial Independence” and “Stakeholder Involvement” have the greatest opportunities for improvement. These results may help to advance the quality of hearing screening guidelines in clinical practice and guide evidence-based updates.