RESUMO
Abstract Background: The sensitivity and specificity of the clinical audiological evaluation in newborns are debatable compared to neurophysiological methods of a hearing evaluation. This study aimed to determine the sensitivity and specificity of the cochleopalpebral reflex as a clinical test for hearing screening in newborns. Methods: A case-control study was designed. Newborns discharged from a neonatal intensive care unit (NICU) were included. Brainstem evoked auditory potentials were recorded. A wooden rattle was used to explore the cochleopalpebral reflex. The sensitivity and specificity of the cochleopalpebral reflex were calculated. Continuous data were analyzed with Student's t-test, with statistically significant p-values < 0.05. Results: We selected 450 newborns who were divided into two groups: group A, with bilateral sensory neural hearing loss (n = 150), and group B, with normal hearing (n = 300). Group A showed a significantly lower gestation age at birth (p = 0.005) compared to group B (32.5 ± 2.6 vs. 34.4 ± 3.5 weeks). In group A, the cochleopalpebral reflex's sensitivity was 80% using the wooden rattle. In group B, the specificity was 98%. Conclusions: The NICU discharged newborns' clinical hearing evaluation is not enough to exclude hearing loss. Although it may be the only diagnostic tool for hearing loss in some settings, its limitations should be considered.
Resumen Introducción: La sensibilidad y la especificidad de la evaluación audiológica clínica en recién nacidos son cuestionables en comparación con los métodos neurofisiológicos de evaluación auditiva. El objetivo de este estudio fue determinar la sensibilidad y la especificidad del reflejo cocleopalpebral como prueba clínica de tamizaje auditivo en recién nacidos. Métodos: Se diseñó un estudio de casos y controles en el que se incluyeron recién nacidos egresados de una unidad de cuidados intensivos neonatales (UCIN). Se les efectuaron potenciales auditivos evocados de tallo cerebral. Para la exploración del reflejo cocleopalpebral se utilizó una matraca de madera. Se calcularon la sensibilidad y la especificidad del reflejo cocleopalpebral. Los datos continuos se analizaron con la prueba t de Student y se consideraron estadísticamente significativos los valores de p < 0.05. Resultados: Se seleccionaron 450 recién nacidos y se dividieron en dos grupos: el grupo A (n = 150) con hipoacusia sensorineural y el grupo B (n = 300) con audición normal. El grupo A mostró una diferencia significativa (p = 0.005) en cuanto a la edad de gestación al nacer en comparación con el grupo B (32.5 ± 2.6 vs. 34.4 ± 3.5 semanas). En el grupo A, la sensibilidad del reflejo cocleopalpebral fue del 80% utilizando la matraca de madera. En el grupo B se encontró una especificidad del 98%. Conclusiones: La evaluación del reflejo cocleopalpebral como prueba clínica de tamizaje auditivo en una población de recién nacidos egresados de una UCIN no es suficiente para descartar la pérdida de la audición. Aunque puede ser la única herramienta de diagnóstico para evaluar la pérdida de la audición en algunos casos, es importante considerar sus limitaciones.
RESUMO
BACKGROUND: The sensitivity and specificity of the clinical audiological evaluation in newborns are debatable compared to neurophysiological methods of a hearing evaluation. This study aimed to determine the sensitivity and specificity of the cochleopalpebral reflex as a clinical test for hearing screening in newborns. METHODS: A case-control study was designed. Newborns discharged from a neonatal intensive care unit (NICU) were included. Brainstem evoked auditory potentials were recorded. A wooden rattle was used to explore the cochleopalpebral reflex. The sensitivity and specificity of the cochleopalpebral reflex were calculated. Continuous data were analyzed with Student's t-test, with statistically significant p-values < 0.05. RESULTS: We selected 450 newborns who were divided into two groups: group A, with bilateral sensory neural hearing loss (n = 150), and group B, with normal hearing (n = 300). Group A showed a significantly lower gestation age at birth (p = 0.005) compared to group B (32.5 ± 2.6 vs. 34.4 ± 3.5 weeks). In group A, the cochleopalpebral reflex's sensitivity was 80% using the wooden rattle. In group B, the specificity was 98%. CONCLUSIONS: The NICU discharged newborns' clinical hearing evaluation is not enough to exclude hearing loss. Although it may be the only diagnostic tool for hearing loss in some settings, its limitations should be considered.