Jove
Visualize
Contact Us
JoVE
x logofacebook logolinkedin logoyoutube logo
ABOUT JoVE
OverviewLeadershipBlogJoVE Help Center
AUTHORS
Publishing ProcessEditorial BoardScope & PoliciesPeer ReviewFAQSubmit
LIBRARIANS
TestimonialsSubscriptionsAccessResourcesLibrary Advisory BoardFAQ
RESEARCH
JoVE JournalMethods CollectionsJoVE Encyclopedia of ExperimentsArchive
EDUCATION
JoVE CoreJoVE BusinessJoVE Science EducationJoVE Lab ManualFaculty Resource CenterFaculty Site
Terms & Conditions of Use
Privacy Policy
Policies

Related Experiment Videos

Comparison of four hearing screening protocols.

R G Turner1

  • 1Department of Otolaryngology, University of California, San Francisco 94143-0732.

Journal of the American Academy of Audiology
|May 1, 1992
PubMed
Summary
This summary is machine-generated.

Related Concept Videos

You might also read

Related Articles

Articles linked to this work by shared authors, journal, and citation graph.

Sort by
Same author

Smith's Operation.

The Indian medical gazette·2017
Same author

Lagging the Synthes(®) locking compression proximal femoral plate 4.5/5.0 to the proximal femur.

Annals of the Royal College of Surgeons of England·2011
Same author

Human Creeping Myiasis.

British medical journal·2010
Same author

Periarticular neurofibroma of the shoulder: a case report.

The Journal of bone and joint surgery. American volume·2010
Same author

Focusing through a Flat Plate; Dependence of Aberration on the Refractive Index.

Applied optics·2010
Same author

Closed fracture manipulation--improving Charnley's three point fixation technique.

Annals of the Royal College of Surgeons of England·2006

This study compares four early hearing loss identification protocols for newborns. The high-risk register and auditory brainstem response screening methods were evaluated for cost and performance in nurseries.

Area of Science:

  • Neonatal care
  • Audiology
  • Public health

Background:

  • Early identification of hearing loss in newborns is crucial for timely intervention.
  • Previous work established a model for calculating the performance and cost of early identification protocols.
  • This paper focuses on comparing specific screening strategies within that model.

Purpose of the Study:

  • To compare the cost and performance of four distinct early hearing loss identification protocols.
  • To evaluate these protocols specifically within intensive care and well-baby nursery settings.
  • To apply a previously developed model to assess different screening strategies.

Main Methods:

  • Utilized a previously developed model for calculating protocol performance and cost.

Related Experiment Videos

  • Constructed four screening protocols by varying hearing screening strategies.
  • Incorporated high-risk registers and auditory brainstem response screening.
  • Derived base model parameters from existing clinical literature.

    • Main Results:

    • Calculated the cost and performance metrics for each of the four protocols.
    • Evaluated the protocols' effectiveness and economic viability in different nursery environments.
    • Identified variations in performance and cost based on screening strategy.

    Conclusions:

    • The choice of hearing screening strategy significantly impacts the cost and performance of early identification protocols.
    • Different protocols may be more suitable for intensive care versus well-baby nurseries.
    • The model provides a framework for optimizing neonatal hearing screening programs.