Recommendation Statement
U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF)
Date: July 2008
Summary of Recommendations
- The USPSTF recommends screening for hearing loss in all newborn infants.
Grade: B recommendation.
|
Select for a Clinical Summary of this recommendation.
This recommendation statement was first published in Pediatrics. Select for copyright and source information.
Contents
Rationale
Clinical Considerations
Other Considerations
Discussion
Recommendations of Others
References
Members of the USPSTF
Rationale
Importance
Children with hearing loss have increased difficulties with verbal and nonverbal communication skills, increased behavioral problems, decreased psychosocial well-being, and lower educational attainment compared with children with normal hearing.
Detection
Because half of the children with hearing loss have no identifiable risk factors, universal screening (instead of targeted screening) has been proposed to detect children with permanent congenital hearing loss (PCHL). There is good evidence that newborn hearing screening testing is highly accurate and leads to earlier identification and treatment of infants with hearing loss.
Benefits of Detection and Early Treatment
Good-quality evidence shows that early detection improves language outcomes.
Harms of Detection and Early Treatment
There is limited evidence about the harms of screening, with conflicting research findings regarding anxiety associated with false-positive test results. There is limited information about the harms of treatment. Complications of cochlear implant surgery include increased risk of meningitis; however, the overall risks of complications of screening and treatment are estimated to be small.
USPSTF Assessment
The USPSTF concludes that there is moderate certainty that the net benefit of screening all newborn infants for hearing loss is moderate.
Return to Contents
Clinical Considerations
Patient Population Under Consideration
The patient population considered here includes all newborn infants.
Assessment of Risk
Risk factors associated with a higher incidence of permanent bilateral congenital hearing loss include NICU admission for >2 days, several congenital syndromes, family history of hereditary childhood sensorineural hearing loss, craniofacial abnormalities, and certain congenital infections. However, ~50% of infants with permanent bilateral congenital hearing loss do not have any known risk factors.
Screening Tests
Screening programs should be conducted by using a 1- or 2-step validated protocol. A frequently used protocol requires a 2-step screening process, which includes otoacoustic emissions (OAEs) followed by auditory brainstem response (ABR) in those who failed the first test. Equipment should be well maintained, staff should be thoroughly trained, and quality-control programs should be in place to reduce avoidable false-positive test results. Programs should develop protocols to ensure that infants with positive screening-test results receive appropriate audiologic evaluation and follow-up after discharge. Newborns delivered at home, birthing centers, or hospitals without hearing screening facilities should have some mechanism for referral for newborn hearing screening, including tracking of follow-up.
Treatment
Early intervention services for hearing-impaired infants should be designed to meet the individualized needs of the infant and family, including acquisition of communication competence, social skills, emotional well-being, and positive self-esteem. Early intervention includes evaluation for amplification or sensory devices, surgical and medical evaluation, and communication assessment and therapy. In recent years, cochlear implants have become more available for appropriate candidates; this surgery is usually considered in those with severe-to-profound hearing loss only after inadequate response to hearing aids.
Screening Intervals
All infants should have hearing screening before 1 month of age. Those infants who do not pass the newborn
screening should undergo audiologic and medical evaluation before 3 months of age for confirmatory testing.
Because of the elevated risk of hearing loss in infants with risk indicators, an expert panel has made a 2000
recommendation that these children should undergo periodic monitoring for 3 years.1
Return to Contents
Other Considerations
Implementation
Thirty-nine US states have enacted legislation related to universal newborn hearing screening (UNHS). These laws differ with respect to whether screening is mandated or encouraged, how results are reported, and how screening is funded.
Research Needs/Gaps
Additional studies detailing the correlation between childhood language scores and functional outcomes (e.g., school attainment and social functioning) are needed.
Return to Contents
Discussion
Burden of Disease
The focus of UNHS programs is on congenital (as opposed to acquired or progressive) hearing loss that may
not be detected in the newborn period. According to the 2000 statement from the Joint Committee on Infant
Hearing (JCIH), hearing screening should identify infants at risk for specifically defined hearing loss that
interferes with development. The targeted hearing loss for UNHS programs is permanent sensory or conductive
hearing loss averaging 30 to 40 dB or more in the frequency region important for speech recognition (~500–4000 Hz).1 PCHL occurs in 1 to 3 per 1000 live births. The prevalence for PCHL is higher than for other conditions screened for in the newborn period. Children with hearing loss may have difficulty learning grammar, word order, idiomatic expressions, and other forms of verbal
communication.2 Delayed language and speech, low educational attainment, increased behavior problems, decreased psychosocial well-being, and poor adaptive skills are all associated with hearing loss in children.1-3
Risk factors associated with a higher incidence of PCHL include NICU admission for >2 days; syndromes
associated with hearing loss, such as Usher syndrome and Waardenburg syndrome; family history of hereditary
childhood hearing loss; craniofacial abnormalities; and congenital infections such as cytomegalovirus, toxoplasmosis, bacterial meningitis, syphilis, herpes, and rubella.1 However, ~50% of infants with PCHL do not have any known risk factors.2,4,5 In studies that included data on ethnicity and socioeconomic status, there has been a higher incidence of PCHL among white American infants compared with infants in other, less well-represented
minority groups regardless of the age at which the hearing loss was identified.2
Scope of Review
The USPSTF examined the evidence for (1) the efficacy of UNHS in improving the initiation of treatment by 6 months of age for average- and high-risk infants compared with targeted screening, (2) the efficacy of treatment on language and communication outcomes if started before 6 months of age for those infants not
identified by targeted screening, and (3) the harms of universal screening. There has been no direct evidence
comparing targeted and universal screening programs in average- and high-risk infants.
Accuracy of Screening Tests
There are 2 approaches to screening newborns for hearing loss: UNHS of all newborns and targeted screening of high-risk newborns.2 All states that have hearing-screening
programs use universal screening. Infants who do not pass the newborn screening tests are referred for
confirmatory testing before a diagnosis of PCHL is made. Referral rates have been lower in programs staffed by dedicated technicians rather than volunteers and students.2
Both OAEs and ABR tests are noninvasive and evaluate easily recorded physiologic activities in newborns
that correlate with the degree of peripheral hearing sensitivity.
A large, good-quality community-based cohort trial showed that the 2-step approach to UNHS (OAEs followed
by ABR for those who failed the first test) yielded a screening sensitivity of 0.92 and a specificity of 0.98.4
Effectiveness of Treatment
A nonrandomized, controlled trial consisting of infants at high and average risk yielded good-quality evidence that newborns who underwent UNHS had earlier referral, diagnosis, and initiation of treatment compared with those who were not screened.5 The number of cases of PCHL referred before the age of 6 months for infants in the UNHS population was 19 times higher compared with that of the nonscreened infants. More children with true PCHL were referred to audiology services before 6 months of age if they were born during periods with UNHS, compared with children born during periods without screening. The odds ratio for early confirmation of hearing impairment before 10 months of age was 5.0 times greater for screened infants compared with nonscreened infants. The odds of initiating early management of hearing loss before 10 months of age was 8.0 times higher for screened infants compared with nonscreened infants.
For all infants involved in the aforementioned trial, an 8-year follow-up study was performed that followed infants with abnormal screening-test results at birth or later.4 The proportion of infants with true hearing impairment who were referred before 6 months of age was 74% during periods with UNHS and 31% during periods without UNHS. After adjustment for the severity of hearing impairment, UNHS was even more strongly correlated with referral before 6 months of age. One additional case of PCHL was referred before 6 months of age for every 1969 infants in the UNHS population.
A community-based retrospective cohort trial yielded good-quality evidence that those children with bilateral permanent hearing impairment who had early diagnostic confirmation before 9 months of age and those who had UNHS (compared with those who had no screening) had moderately higher receptive language scores at 8
years of age.6
One fair-quality retrospective cohort study examined children from 7 to 8 years of age who were fitted with hearing aids for congenital hearing impairment by the age of 4.5 years. The study found that age at diagnosis did contribute significantly to variance on receptive vocabulary but did not for other language, speech, or reading measures.7 There is fair-quality evidence, based on a
retrospective cohort study, that an earlier age at the time of enrollment into an early child hearing intervention program results in better outcomes for receptive and expressive language compared with those treated at a later age, after controlling for degree of hearing loss and degree of outcome impairment at program entry.8 A fair-quality retrospective cohort study that analyzed
children enrolled for at least 6 months in a diagnostic early intervention program showed that children enrolled before 11 months of age had stronger vocabulary and reasoning skills than children enrolled at later ages, after adjustment for family involvement, degree of hearing loss, and nonverbal IQ.9
Potential Harms of Screening and Treatment
Limited evidence is available about the harms of screening. A fair-quality retrospective cohort study showed no differences in anxiety and attitude toward infant scores for mothers of infants who passed and did not pass screening tests.10 There is fair evidence, based on a prospective
cohort study, that there is no significant difference in the level of concern of mothers whose infants
failed the first and second hearing-screening tests.2 One poor-quality case-control study examined infants who were at risk for hearing impairment, who failed a distraction stress test, or who were controls for the other 2 groups. Parent-reported concerns about language development,
general development, and perceived vulnerability to ill health did not differ among the groups, and most negative emotions resolved after the child's definitive hearing test.2
Evidence regarding the harms of treatment is also limited. The have been few immediate complications of
surgery reported in case series and case reports of cochlear implant surgery in infants; however, an increased risk of meningitis that may persist for several years after implantation has been reported. Note that these case series reflect the use of a no-longer-manufactured cochlear implant. Furthermore, children with congenital cochlear abnormalities may have a predisposition to meningitis regardless of the use of cochlear implants. The overall complications of screening and treatment are estimated to be small.
Estimate of Magnitude of Net Benefit
There is good evidence that newborn hearing-screening testing is highly accurate and leads to earlier identification and treatment of infants with hearing loss. With regard to the yield of screening 10 000 newborns for hearing loss by using universal versus targeted screening, universal screening would yield 7 more cases diagnosed by 3 months of age (1 with risk factors and 6 without known risk factors). The number needed to screen to diagnose 1 case is 878 and 178 for UNHS and targeted screening programs, respectively. The number needed to screen to diagnose 1 additional case by 3 months of age is 1333 for UNHS.2
Return to Contents
Recommendations of Others
The JCIH endorses early detection and intervention for infants with hearing loss through integrated, interdisciplinary state and national systems of UNHS, evaluation, and family-centered intervention. The JCIH 2000 position statement (and recently released 2007 statement) provides guidelines that include UNHS soon after birth, before hospital discharge, or before 1 month of age; diagnosis of hearing loss through audiologic and medical evaluation before 3 months of age; and intervention through interdisciplinary programs for infants with confirmed hearing loss before 6 months.1,11 The American Academy of Pediatrics Task Force on Newborn and Infant Hearing, the National Institute on Deafness and Other Communication Disorders, and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Early Hearing Detection and Intervention Program support the JCIH recommendations.12-14 The American Academy of Audiology Task Force on the Early Identification of Hearing Loss agrees that the use of support personnel in newborn hearing screening programs is an appropriate and often necessary strategy for achieving universal detection of congenital hearing loss.15 The supervising audiologist should be experienced in both the development and maintenance of a UNHS program, including an understanding of technology options.
Return to Contents
References
1. Joint Committee on Infant Hearing; American Academy of Audiology; American Academy of Pediatrics; American Speech-Language-Hearing Association; Directors of Speech and Hearing Programs in State Health and Welfare Agencies. Year 2000 position statement: principles and guidelines for
early hearing detection and intervention programs. Pediatrics 2000;106(4):798–817
2. Nelson HD, Bougatsos C, Nygren P. Universal Newborn Hearing Screening: Systematic Review to Update the 2001 U.S. Preventive Services Task Force Recommendation. Pediatrics 2008;122(1):e266–e276
3. Helfand M, Thompson DC, Davis RL, McPhillips H, Homer CJ, Lieu TL. Newborn hearing screening. Rockville, MD: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality; 2001. Systematic evidence review No. 5; AHRQ publication 02-S001. Available at: www.ahrq.gov/clinic/serfiles.htm. Accessed July 17, 2007
4. Kennedy C, McCann D, Campbell MJ, Kimm L, Thornton R. Universal newborn screening for permanent childhood hearing impairment: an 8-year follow-up of a controlled trial. Lancet 2005;366(9486):660–662
5. Wessex Universal Neonatal Hearing Screening Trial Group. Controlled trial of universal neonatal screening for early identification of permanent childhood hearing impairment. Lancet 1998;352(9145):1957–1964
6. Kennedy CR, McCann DC, Campbell MJ, et al. Language ability after early detection of permanent childhood hearing impairment. N Engl J Med 2006;354(20):2131–2141
7. Wake M, Hughes EK, Poulakis Z, Collins C, Rickards FW. Outcomes of children with mild-profound congenital hearing loss at 7 to 8 years: a population study. Ear Hear 2004;25(1):1–8.
8. Moeller MP. Early intervention and language development in children who are deaf and hard of hearing. Pediatrics 2000; 106(3). Available at: www.pediatrics.org/cgi/content/full/106/3/e43
9. Calderon R, Naidu S. Further support of the benefits of early
identification and intervention with children with hearing loss. Volta Rev 2000;100(4):53–84.
10. Kennedy CR. Controlled trial of universal neonatal screening for early identification of permanent childhood hearing impairment: coverage, positive predictive value, effect on mothers and incremental yield. Wessex Universal Neonatal Screening Trial Group. Acta Paediatr Suppl 1999:88(432):73–75.
11. American Academy of Pediatrics, Joint Committee on Infant Hearing. Year 2007 position statement: principles and guidelines for early hearing detection and intervention programs. Pediatrics 2007;120(4):898–921.
12.American Academy of Pediatrics, Task Force on Newborn and Infant Hearing. Newborn and infant hearing loss: detection and intervention. Pediatrics 1999;103(2):527–530.
13. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Infants tested for hearing loss: United States [published correction appears in MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep 2003;52(49):1210]. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep 2003;52(41):981–984.
14. National Institutes of Health. Early identification of hearing
impairment in infants and young children. NIH Consens Statement 1993;11(1):1–24.
15. American Academy of Audiology. Considerations for the use of support personnel for newborn hearing screening. Available at: www.audiology.org/publications/documents/positions/Infant.ID/usp4nhs.htm. Accessed April 23, 2008
Return to Contents
Members of the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force
Members of the USPSTF at the time this recommendation was finalized* were Ned Calonge, MD, MPH, USPSTF Chair (Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment, Denver, CO); Diana B. Petitti, MD, MPH, USPSTF Vice-chair (Keck School of Medicine, University of Southern California, Sierra Madre, CA); Thomas G. DeWitt, MD (Children’s Hospital Medical Center, Cincinnati, OH); Leon Gordis, MD, MPH, DrPH (Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, MD); Kimberly D. Gregory, MD, MPH (Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles, CA); Russell Harris, MD, MPH (University of North Carolina School of Medicine, Chapel Hill, NC); George Isham, MD, MS (HealthPartners, Minneapolis, MN); Michael L. LeFevre, MD, MSPH (University of Missouri School of Medicine, Columbia, MO); Carol Loveland-Cherry, PhD, RN (University of Michigan School of Nursing, Ann Arbor, MI); Lucy N. Marion, PhD, RN (Medical College of Georgia, Augusta, GA); Virginia A. Moyer, MD, MPH (University of Texas Health Science Center, Houston, TX); Judith K. Ockene, PhD (University of Massachusetts Medical School, Worcester, MA); George F. Sawaya, MD (University of California, San Francisco, CA); Albert L. Siu, MD, MSPH (Mount Sinai Medical Center, New York, NY); Steven M. Teutsch, MD, MPH (Merck & Company, Inc, West Point, PA); and Barbara P. Yawn, MD, MSPH, MSc (Olmsted Medical Center, Rochester, MN).
*For a list of current Task Force members, go to http://www.ahrq.gov/clinic/uspstfab.htm
Disclaimer: Recommendations made by the USPSTF are independent of the U.S. government. They should not be construed as an official position of the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality or the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.
Return to Contents
Copyright and Source Information
Source: U.S. Preventive Services Task Force. Universal screening for hearing loss in newborns: U.S. Preventive Services Task Force Recommendation Statement. Pediatrics 2008;122:143–148.
This document is in the public domain within the United States. For information on reprinting, contact Randie Siegel, Associate Director, Office of Communications and Knowledge Transfer, Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, 540 Gaither Road, Rockville, MD 20850.
Requests for linking or to incorporate content in electronic resources should be sent to: info@ahrq.gov.
AHRQ Publication No. 08-05117-EF-2
Current as of July 2008
Internet Citation:
U.S. Preventive Services Task Force. Universal Screening for Hearing Loss in Newborns: U.S. Preventive Services Task Force Recommendation Statement. AHRQ Publication No. 08-05117-EF-2, July 2008. Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, Rockville, MD. http://www.ahrq.gov/clinic/uspstf08/newbornhear/newbhearrs.htm
540 Gaither Road Rockville, MD 20850