切换至 "中华医学电子期刊资源库"

中华妇幼临床医学杂志(电子版) ›› 2007, Vol. 03 ›› Issue (06) : 326 -328. doi: 10.3877/cma.j.issn.1673-5250.2007.06.108

论著

新生儿听力筛查假阳性影响因素分析
李顺品, 黄安源   
  1. 四川省攀枝花市妇幼保健院(攀枝花市,617000)
  • 出版日期:2007-12-01

To analyze reasons of false positive of hearing screening for 4 125 newborns

Shun-pin LI, An-yuan HUANG   

  1. The Maternity and Children Health Care Hospital of Panzhihua, Panzhihua 617000, China
  • Published:2007-12-01
引用本文:

李顺品, 黄安源. 新生儿听力筛查假阳性影响因素分析[J]. 中华妇幼临床医学杂志(电子版), 2007, 03(06): 326-328.

Shun-pin LI, An-yuan HUANG. To analyze reasons of false positive of hearing screening for 4 125 newborns[J]. Chinese Journal of Obstetrics & Gynecology and Pediatrics(Electronic Edition), 2007, 03(06): 326-328.

目的

探讨和分析新生儿听力筛查中假阳性的发生率和原因。

方法

应用瞬态诱发耳声发射(transient evoked otoacoustic emission,TEOAE)和自动判别听性脑干听觉诱发电位(automated auditory brainstem response,AABR)对2003年3月至2005年12月在本院产科出生的4 125例活产新生儿进行新生儿普遍听力筛查(universal newborn hearing screening,UNHS)。初筛时间为出生后2 d~3 d,用TEOAE进行;复筛应用TEOAE和AABR于出生后42 d进行。复筛"未通过"者于3个月龄时,做诊断性检查评估听力水平,并跟踪随访1年以上。

结果

初筛4 125例,通过3 886例,通过率为94.21%;复筛239例,通过209例;复筛仍未通过20例,其中确诊听力损失为16例。在4 125例新生儿中,听力损失的发病率为0.39%,初筛假阳性率为5.40%,整个筛查程序假阳性率为0.10%。

结论

虽然听力筛查的假阳性率不高,但绝对数量不可忽视,应重视假阳性出现的原因,并合理处置,降低其发生率。

Objective

To investigate and analyze the rate and reasons of false positive by newborn hearing screening.

Methods

Transient evoked otoacoustic emission(TEOAE) and automated auditory brainstem response(AABR) were used to examine the hearing of 4 125 live birth newborns of our hospital's maternity department from Mar. 2003 to Dec.2005. TEOAE was used for preliminary hearing screening in 2 days-3 days after birth, and both TEOAE and AABR were used for the secondary hearing screening at 42 days after birth. Diagnostic hearing tests were used to assess the hearing of those who failed the secondary hearing screening in 3 months after birth. They were followed up for more than 1 year.

Results

All the 4 125 newborns were had the preliminary hearing screening. 3 886 of them were passed, the ratio was 94.21%. 239 infants failed preliminary hearing screening when they underwent the secondary screening at 42 days after birth. 219 of them were passed, 16 of cases who failed secondary screening were diagnosed with hearing loss, the morbidity of 4 125 newborns was 0.13%. The false positive rate was 5.4% and 0.1% of the preliminary screening and the whole process, respectively.

Conclusion

Although the false positive rate is very low, the number of false positives can not be ignored. It is important to sum up the reasons of the false positive of hearing screening and reduce its rate as possible as we can.

1 Erenberg A, Lemons J, Sia C, et al. Newborn and infant hearing loss: Detection and intervention. American Academy of Pediatrics. Task Force on Newborn and Infant Hearing, 1998-1999. Pediatrics, 1999,103(2): 527-528.
2 聂文英. 10 501例新生儿听力筛查结果.中华医学杂志,2003,83(4):274-277.
3 石丽娥.2 367例新生儿听力筛查初步报告.中国当代儿科杂志,1999,1(5): 287-289.
4 姜泗长,顾瑞主编.临床听力学. 北京:北京医科大学中国协和医科大学联合出版社,1999,233-242.
5 聂迎玖,戚以胜,赵啸天等. 耳声发射技术在围产期听力学中的应用价值. 耳鼻咽喉-头颈外科,1999,6(4):207.
6 Joint Committee on Infant Hearing. Year 2000 position statement: Principles and guidelines for early hearing detection and intervention programs. Am J Audiol, 2000, 9(1): 9-12.
7 Munro KJ, Dees DC. An improvement in hearing sensitivity following hearing-aid fitting in a child with an apparent sensorineural hearing impairment.J Laryngol Otol, 1996, 110(4): 362-364.
8 Mason JA, Herrmann KR. Universal infant hearing screening by automated auditory brainstem response measurement.Pediatrics,1998,101(2): 221-222.
9 Stein LK. Factors influencing the efficacy of universal newborn hearing screening. Pediatr Clin North Am, 1999, 46(1): 96-97.
10 Isaacson G. Universal newborn hearing screening in an inner-city, managed care environment. Laryngoscope, 2000, 110(6): 881-883.
11 Rhodes MC, Margolis RH, Hirsch JE, et al. Hearing screening in the newborn intensive care nursery: Comparison of methods. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg, 1999, 120(6): 799-800.
12 聂迎玖,蔡正华,戚以胜等. 新生儿听力筛查模式的研究及应用. 听力学及语言疾病杂志,2001,9(新生儿听力筛查专刊):1.
13 韩德民主编. 新生儿及婴幼儿听力筛查. 北京:人民卫生出版社,2003,142-148.
14 许正敏,李瑾.畸变产物耳声发射和听性脑干反应联合应用于新生儿听力筛选的敏感性研究. 听力学及言语疾病杂志,2001,9(3): 9-11.
15 闫承先. 小儿耳鼻咽喉科学. 天津:天津科学技术出版社,1985,159.
16 黄丽辉,韩德民,李兴启等. 国外医学耳鼻咽喉科学分册,2005,29(4):224-226.
[1] 赵晓曦, 武艾宁, 于荣鑫, 万骁文. 内蒙古自治区无创产前基因检测高危孕妇的染色体异常状况分析[J]. 中华妇幼临床医学杂志(电子版), 2018, 14(02): 224-229.
[2] 刘春燕, 何斌, 韩代文, 刘之英, 赖怡, 秦利, 袁粒星, 刘珊玲, 王和. 中孕期唐氏综合征血清学筛查在高龄孕妇中的应用价值探讨[J]. 中华妇幼临床医学杂志(电子版), 2016, 12(02): 159-163.
[3] 罗红裔, 陶宣华, 邹凌, 蔡娟. 各级保健机构新生儿听力筛查状况分析[J]. 中华妇幼临床医学杂志(电子版), 2009, 05(04): 348-351.
[4] 石华, 李文胜, 段义飞, 沈川, 柳晓琴, 甘春玉, 江咏梅. 过敏性紫癜患儿梅毒血清学试验假阳性的探讨[J]. 中华临床实验室管理电子杂志, 2018, 06(04): 208-211.
[5] 王岚, 郭丹杰, 牛亚芊芊, 薛琳, 张天宏, 韩春颖. 平板运动试验假阳性的影响因素及临床价值[J]. 中华心脏与心律电子杂志, 2017, 05(01): 31-34.
阅读次数
全文


摘要