Detalhes bibliográficos
| Ano de defesa: |
2014 |
| Autor(a) principal: |
Nobre, Raquel Alves
 |
| Orientador(a): |
Lewis, Doris Ruthy |
| Banca de defesa: |
Não Informado pela instituição |
| Tipo de documento: |
Dissertação
|
| Tipo de acesso: |
Acesso aberto |
| Idioma: |
por |
| Instituição de defesa: |
Pontifícia Universidade Católica de São Paulo
|
| Programa de Pós-Graduação: |
Programa de Estudos Pós-Graduados em Fonoaudiologia
|
| Departamento: |
Faculdade de Ciências Humanas e da Saúde
|
| País: |
BR
|
| Palavras-chave em Português: |
|
| Palavras-chave em Inglês: |
|
| Área do conhecimento CNPq: |
|
| Link de acesso: |
https://tede2.pucsp.br/handle/handle/11995
|
Resumo: |
The Universal Newborn Hearing Screening (UNSH) aims to provide early diagnosis in newborns. The procedure uses objective measures such as the Transient Evoked Otoacustic Emissions (TEOAEs) and the Auditory Brainstem Response (ABR). Different stages and protocols are broadly used in TANU, and that may change the values of passes and fails of each program. Purpose: To study the rate of passes and fails in the protocols and stages that are used at TANU, which were performed using electroacoustic (TEOAEs) and electrophysiological (ABR) procedures through an integrative review. Methods: Type of study: An integrative review. Search strategy: The following databases were examined: PubMed, SciELO and SCOPUS.Criteria for selecting the readings: Articles that have evaluated at least a minimum of 1,000 newborns; specifying the time (hours of life of the newborn) in which the test was accomplished; articles specifying how many days later the retest was performed after the hospital discharge, if the infant failed the test; in the article´s methodology the tests that were used and its stages must be included. The method of choice should be: TEOAEs test and retest in newborns with no risk; TEOAEs in conjunction with ABR and ABR in the retest in newborns with no risk and ABR on the test and retest in newborns with a risk factor; the results should present the pass and fail results of each step, such as the diagnosis result. Results: A total of 3950 references were found in English, Portuguese and Spanish. After removing duplicated studies (300), 3650 references were obtained, that were analyzed through titles and summaries. Of this total, 3500 were excluded for being researches with different topics. Hereby, 15 filled all the inclusion criteria. The final rates of pass and fail found in the studied protocols were the following: for the TEOAEs test/retest protocol the pass rate varied from 99,53% to 97,39% and the fail rate from 2,41% to 0,44%. In the TEOAEs and ABR test protocol and in the ABR retest the pass results ranged from 99,84% to 98% and fail from 0,35% to 0,16%. And in the ABR test/retest protocol in newborns with risk factors the pass rate was reached from 98,62% to 92,74% and the fail rate from 1,7% to 1,38%. All the pass and fail rates are within of what is recommended by literature. Conclusion: The protocol that presented the smaller number of false positives was the TEOAEs combined with the ABR in the test and ABR in retest. The findings indicate that the probability of fail for the TEOAEs in the test and retest is larger than the TEOAEs and ABR in the test and ABR in retest, both for the newborns screened until 24 hours of life and for the newborns screened between 25 and 72 hours of life |
