Hörscreening mit automatisch bewerteten TEOAE und einem neuen verfahren automatisch bewerteter FAEP optimierung und feldversuch

Background and objective. To make a rational decision as to which screening test might be adequate as a universal newborn hearing screening, different methods have to be tested under "real-life" conditions. In addition, a good reference is required as "golden standard". Patients/methods. In the study presented here, an ABR with a novel algorithm for threshold-estimation was optimized and compared to TEOAE (Echoscreen®) and DPOAE (GSI 60®) in a three-step protocol using a standard click-evoked ABR (Evoselect®) as reference of sensitivity and specificity. Results. 26 ears were found to be hearing-impaired. All of them were also detected by each of the screening method (sensitivity 100%). Specificity in the final "step 2" of the study was around 87,7/92,3% for Echoscreen®, 82,4/84,4% for DPOAE and 82,4/89,1 for Evoflash® (left/right, respectively). Differences were not at all significant (X²-test, p>>0,05). In summary, results were somewhat inferior to those found by other authors, probably due to more difficult conditions in the "real-life" setting. Conclusions. A higher rate of false-alarm shows that a two-step screening is necessary. Therefore, increased resources for diagnostic procedures are required.