<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><!DOCTYPE article  PUBLIC "-//NLM//DTD Journal Publishing DTD v3.0 20080202//EN" "http://dtd.nlm.nih.gov/publishing/3.0/journalpublishing3.dtd"><article xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink" dtd-version="3.0" xml:lang="en" article-type="research article"><front><journal-meta><journal-id journal-id-type="publisher-id">IJOHNS</journal-id><journal-title-group><journal-title>International Journal of Otolaryngology and Head &amp; Neck Surgery</journal-title></journal-title-group><issn pub-type="epub">2168-5452</issn><publisher><publisher-name>Scientific Research Publishing</publisher-name></publisher></journal-meta><article-meta><article-id pub-id-type="doi">10.4236/ijohns.2014.34038</article-id><article-id pub-id-type="publisher-id">IJOHNS-48301</article-id><article-categories><subj-group subj-group-type="heading"><subject>Articles</subject></subj-group><subj-group subj-group-type="Discipline-v2"><subject>MEDICINE &amp; HEALTHCARE</subject></subj-group></article-categories><title-group><article-title>Neonatal Hearing Screening Using Transient Evoked Otoacoustic Emission in a Sub-Urban Population in Nigeria</article-title></title-group><contrib-group><contrib contrib-type="author" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>Moronke</surname><given-names>D. Akinola</given-names></name><xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff1"><sup>1</sup></xref></contrib><contrib contrib-type="author" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>Paul</surname><given-names>A. Onakoya</given-names></name><xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff2"><sup>2</sup></xref></contrib><contrib contrib-type="author" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>Olukemi</surname><given-names>Tongo</given-names></name><xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff3"><sup>3</sup></xref></contrib><contrib contrib-type="author" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>Akeem</surname><given-names>O. Lasisi</given-names></name><xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff2"><sup>2</sup></xref><xref ref-type="corresp" rid="cor1"><sup>*</sup></xref></contrib></contrib-group><aff id="aff1"><addr-line>Department of Otorhinolaryngology, Lagos University Teaching Hospital, Lagos, Nigeria</addr-line></aff><aff id="aff3"><addr-line>Department of Paediatrics, College of Medicine, University of Ibadan, Ibadan, Nigeria</addr-line></aff><aff id="aff2"><addr-line>Department of Otorhinolaryngology, College of Medicine, University of Ibadan, Ibadan, Nigeria</addr-line></aff><author-notes><corresp id="cor1">* E-mail:<email>akeemlasisi@gmail.com(AOL)</email>;</corresp></author-notes><pub-date pub-type="epub"><day>27</day><month>06</month><year>2014</year></pub-date><volume>03</volume><issue>04</issue><fpage>205</fpage><lpage>211</lpage><history><date date-type="received"><day>17</day>	<month>April</month>	<year>2014</year></date><date date-type="rev-recd"><day>16</day>	<month>May</month>	<year>2014</year>	</date><date date-type="accepted"><day>15</day>	<month>June</month>	<year>2014</year></date></history><permissions><copyright-statement>&#169; Copyright  2014 by authors and Scientific Research Publishing Inc. </copyright-statement><copyright-year>2014</copyright-year><license><license-p>This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution International License (CC BY). http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/</license-p></license></permissions><abstract><p>
	Objective: To determine the
proportion of neonates with referral result on testing with transient evoked otoacoustic
emission (TEOAE) and the associated risk factors. Method: Prospective evaluation
of all neonates born in the Hospital within 6 months using the TEOAE. A
hand-held Etymotic Research Otoacoustic Emission Scanner (Ero-scan Combo) was
used with the child sleeping in the cot or the mother’s hand. Right and left
ears were tested separately and the result was displayed automatically as “pass”
when 100% of the in-built criteria were met and “refer” if otherwise. The
subjects that passed in both ears were regarded as passes, while those with a
refer in either the right/left ears or both ears were regarded as referrals and
were thus subjected to rescreening in six weeks or on discharge from the
special care baby unit. Analysis was done to find association between the
outcome of TEOAE and the clinical and epidemiological risk factors. Result: TEOAE
was carried out on 386 neonates, (194 males (50.3%) and 192 females (49.7%)).
The mean age at screening was 2.3 days (SD = 1.5), the mean gestational age was
38.0 weeks (SD = 2.7) while the mean birth weight was 2.9 kg (SD = 0.7) and the
mean Apgar score at 1 and 5 minute were 8.3 (SD = 1.0) and 9.8 (SD = 0.6). At the
first step hearing screening, referral rate was 112 (29.0%); at the second
stage, 31 (8.5%) neonates had referral in one or both ears. Fisher’s exact test
showed that prematurity, multiple births, jaundice and small birth weight were
significantly associated with a referral outcome. However, logistic regression revealed
prematurity as a significant predictor of referral outcome with a negative
predictive value of 12.61. Conclusion: The referral rate is high with
prematurity as a significant predictor. This study calls for commencement of
newborn hearing screening and strengthening of the public health measures in
the developing countries.
</p></abstract><kwd-group><kwd>Transient Evoked Otoacoustic Emission</kwd><kwd> Neonates</kwd><kwd> Screening</kwd><kwd> Risk Factors</kwd></kwd-group></article-meta></front><body><sec id="s1"><title>1. Introduction</title><p>Evoked otoacoustic emissions (OAEs) are the induced mechanical movements of the cochlea outer hair cells (OHCS) in response to sound stimulation [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.48301-ref1">1</xref>] ; this physiologic response of the cochlear has shown a significant benefit as an objective measure of hearing testing, hence its use in hearing screening [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.48301-ref2">2</xref>] [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.48301-ref26">26</xref>] . Normal response ranges have been established over the past several years allowing assessment of the healthiness of an unknown ear on the basis of comparing its emission properties to the database of normal responses [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.48301-ref2">2</xref>] [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.48301-ref3">3</xref>] .</p><p>Evoked OAE and Auditory Brainstem Response (ABR) have been recommended as useful screening protocol in newborn hearing screening (NHS) [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.48301-ref3">3</xref>] . In contrast to the developed countries where NHS has been established, the implementation is yet to commence in the developing countries [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.48301-ref4">4</xref>] -[<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.48301-ref6">6</xref>] . Thus data from the developing countries are a few reports from hospital and vaccination centre in the urban areas. There has been a noticeable increase in the occurrence of permanent congenital hearing impairment in Nigeria stimulating the commencement of cochlear implantation in Nigeria [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.48301-ref7">7</xref>] ; this has informed this pilot hearing screening.</p><p>In this study, we performed a transient evoked otoacoustic emission (TEOAE) on all new-borns in the Hospital with the objective of determining the proportion of neonates with referral result and the associated risk factors. These data will add to the global data on neonatal hearing screening; but more profoundly as a part of the evidence in support of the call for the commencement of a national policy on the universal neonatal hearing screening programme. In addition, it will serve as a reference for the assessment of the need for and the development of cochlear implantation programme in future.</p></sec><sec id="s2"><title>2. Method</title><p>This was a prospective evaluation of hearing loss among neonates born in the Lying-in Obstetric wards of the University College Hospital, Ibadan within 6 months. A written informed consent was obtained from the parents (either the father or mother) of the participants and structured questionnaire was administered on interviewer basis. The questionnaire was designed to obtain information on the participant’s biographic data including relevant clinical information on pregnancy, antenatal, delivery and postnatal events. The case notes of the mothers and their babies were also reviewed. Social stratification of the patients was based on occupational and educational strata as devised by Oyedeji [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.48301-ref8">8</xref>] . All the participants whom either of the parents have consented, after the details of the procedure has been explained to them, had general and otologic examination to rule out any underlying pathology e.g. vernix caseosa blocking the external auditory meatus.</p><p>Transient evoked otoacoustic emissions (TEOAE) were obtained using the hand-held Etymotic Research Otoacoustic Emission Scanner (Ero-scan Combo) device manufactured by Maico Diagnostics. All auditory evaluations were done in the child’s cot on the ward during sleep. The active electrode was placed on the mastoid region (below the ear lobe) of the ear to be tested, and referenced to a vertex electrode placed on the vertex. A ground electrode was placed above the ear, with the impedance kept in the range of 250 Ohms to 10,000 Ohms for each electrode pair (mastoid/ground and vertex/ground). Right and left ears were tested separately with the CE-Chirp stimulus administered at the rate of 93/second [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.48301-ref9">9</xref>] -[<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.48301-ref12">12</xref>] .</p><p>The result was displayed automatically as “pass” when 100% of the in-built criteria is met and “refer” if otherwise. The subjects that passed in both ears were regarded as passes, while those with a refer in either the right/left ears or both ears were regarded as referrals and were thus subjected to rescreening in six weeks or on discharge for those admitted in the special care baby unit [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.48301-ref10">10</xref>] [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.48301-ref12">12</xref>] . The study received approval from the Joint Ethical Committee of the University of Ibadan and University College Hospital, Ibadan.</p><sec id="s2_1"><title>Data Analysis</title><p>The main variable was the pass or referral result from TEOAE while the dependent variables are the epidemiological and clinical risk factors. The presence or absence of OAE (pass or referral) waves was compared in normal and at-risk neonates. This was presented in tabular forms as appropriate. Analysis was done using the Statistical Package of Social Sciences (SPSS) version 16.0.</p><p>The risk factors of hearing loss were evaluated in the newborns, and they were divided in two groups, those with and without risk factors. Chi square or Fischer’s exact test was used to determine the association between the risk factors and hearing loss, the level of significance was at P &lt; 0.05. Logistic regression analysis was carried out on the significant risk factors. The sensitivity and specificity of the screening method and instruments used was also determined.</p></sec></sec><sec id="s3"><title>3. Result</title><p>Hearing screening was carried out on 386 neonates, made up of 194 males (50.3%) and 192 females (49.7%) with a sex ratio of approximately 1:1. These were made up of 371 (96.1%) neonates delivered in the University College Hospital, Ibadan and 15 (3.9%) delivered at peripheral private and General hospitals and referred to University College Hospital. The mode of delivery was spontaneous vertex delivery in 172 (44.4%) and caesarean section in 214 (55.6%). The parents were predominantly class 1 socioeconomic status, <xref ref-type="table" rid="table1">Table 1</xref> shows the distribution of the sociodemographic profile of the parents.</p><p>The mean age of neonates at screening was 2.3 days (SD = 1.5) and a median of 2.0 days. The mean gestational age at screening (by last menstrual period) was 38.0 weeks (SD = 2.7) and a median of 38.4 weeks while the mean birth weight was 2.9 kg, SD = 0.7) and a median of 3.0 kg. The mean Apgar score at one minute was 8.3 (SD = 1.0) and a median of 9.0, while the mean Apgar score at 5 minutes was 9.8 (SD = 0.6) and a median of 10.</p><p><xref ref-type="table" rid="table2">Table 2</xref> shows the distribution of the risk factors encountered among the subjects. Among the adverse neonatal events observed, caesarean delivery (55.4%), prematurity (15.5%) and neonatal Sepsis (10.6%) constituted the highest risk factors, while prolonged rupture of membranes (0.8%), birth asphyxia (Apgar score less than 4 at 1 min/&lt; 6 at 5 min) (1.0%) and prolonged labour (1.3%) were the least encountered.</p><p>The neonates were divided into at risk group (ARG) if at least one of these risk factors was present and not at risk group (NARG) if none of the risk factors were present, 110 (28.5%) neonates were at risk.</p><sec id="s3_1"><title>Outcome of TEOAE Screening</title><p>The referral rate of neonatal hearing loss with TEOAE is 8.5% with a prevalence of 85 per thousand live births.</p><p>At the first step hearing screening with TEOAE, the total number of neonates that passed TEOAE in both ears was 274 (71.0%) while 112 (29.0%) neonates failed in one or both ears and had to pass through the second stage screening.</p><p>At the second stage screening with TEOAE, the total number of neonates that passed in both ears was 60 (16.4%), while 31 (8.5%) neonates that failed in one or both ears were referred. Out of these, 13 (3.6%) involved the right ear alone, 15 (4.1%) in the left ear alone and 3 (2.6%) were referred in both ears. The rest of the neonates included 18 (4.9%) who defaulted the second stage screening while 3 (0.1%) died (<xref ref-type="table" rid="table3">Table 3</xref>).</p><table-wrap id="table1"  position="float"><object-id pub-id-type="pii">Table 1</object-id><label>Table 1</label><caption><p>. Sociodemographic profile of subjects n = 386</p></caption><table><thead><tr><th align="center" valign="middle" >Sex</th><th align="center" valign="middle" >Frequency</th><th align="center" valign="middle" >Percentage (%)</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Male</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >194</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >50.3</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Female</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >192</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >49.7</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Total</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >386</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >100.0</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle"  colspan="3"  >Socio-Economic Class</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Class 1 (University graduates/Senior public workers)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >35</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >9.1</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Class 2 (School certificate holder/non-academic professional)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >135</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >35.0</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Class 3 (Grade II teachers/non-skilled workers)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >163</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >42.2</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Class 4 (Primary certificates/petty trader, messengers)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >49</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >12.7</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Class 5 (No formal education/Unemployed, subsistence farmer)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >4</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1.0</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Total</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >386</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >100.0</td></tr></tbody></table></table-wrap><table-wrap id="table2"  position="float"><object-id pub-id-type="pii">Table 2</object-id><label>Table 2</label><caption><p>. Distribution of risk factors among subjects</p></caption><table><thead><tr><th align="center" valign="middle" >Risk Factor</th><th align="center" valign="middle" >Present (%)</th><th align="center" valign="middle" >Absent (%)</th><th align="center" valign="middle" >Total (%)</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Prolonged rupture of membranes</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >3 (0.8)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >383 (99.2)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >386 (100)</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Apgar Score &lt;4 at 1 min/ &lt;6 at 5 min</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >4 (1.0)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >382 (99.0)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >386 (100)</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Prolonged labour</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >5 (1.3)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >381 (98.7)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >386 (100)</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Family history of hearing loss</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >7 (1.8)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >379 (98.2)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >386 (100)</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Craniofacial abnormality</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >9 (2.3)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >377 (97.7)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >386 (100)</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Birth Asphyxia</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >18 (4.7)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >368 (95.3)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >386 (100)</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Neonatal infections</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >19 (4.9)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >367 (95.1)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >386 (100)</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Birth Weight &lt; 1.5 Kg</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >19 (4.9)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >367 (95.1)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >386 (100)</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Jaundice At EBT Level</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >20 (5.2)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >366 (94.8)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >386 (100)</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Multiple birth</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >33 (8.5)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >353 (91.5)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >386 (100)</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Neonatal sepsis</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >41 (10.6)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >345 (89.4)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >386 (100)</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Prematurity GA by LMP &lt; 37 wks</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >60 (15.5)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >326 (84.5)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >386 (100)</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Delivery through caesarean section</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >214 (55.4)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >172 (44.6)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >386 (100)</td></tr></tbody></table></table-wrap><p>EBT—Exchange Blood Transfusion; GA—Gestational Age; LMP—Last Menstrual Period.</p><table-wrap id="table3"  position="float"><object-id pub-id-type="pii">Table 3</object-id><label>Table 3</label><caption><p>. Outcome of second step hearing screening with TEOAE after referral</p></caption><table><thead><tr><th align="center" valign="middle" >Teoae</th><th align="center" valign="middle" >Frequency</th><th align="center" valign="middle" >Percentage (%)</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Fail</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >31</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >27.7</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Pass</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >60</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >53.6</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Defaulted</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >18</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >16.1</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Died</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >3</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >2.6</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Total</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >112</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >100.0</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle"  colspan="3"  >Final Patient outcome of TEOAE Screening</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Needed Referral</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >31</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >8.5</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Pass</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >334</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >91.5</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Total</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >365</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >100.0</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle"  colspan="3"  >TEOAE Referral Distribution</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Right Ear</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >13</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >41.9</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Left Ear</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >15</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >48.4</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Bilateral</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >3</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >9.7</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Total</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >31</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >100.0</td></tr></tbody></table></table-wrap><p>Referral rate of neonatal hearing loss with TEOAE = 31 per 365 = 0.085 = 8.5%.</p><p>Among the 31 neonates with referral result on TOAE 19 were males, while 12 were females with a prevalence rate of 5.2% and 3.4% respectively. The difference in the referral rate between males and females was not statistically significant (p = 0.23).</p><p><xref ref-type="table" rid="table4">Table 4</xref> shows the association between the presence of the risk factors and referral outcome in TEOAE. The univariate analysis using Fisher’s exact test showed that prematurity, multiple births, jaundice and small birth weight (less than 1.5 kg) were significantly associated with a referral outcome with TEOAE. However, in <xref ref-type="table" rid="table5">Table 5</xref>, these significant risk factors were subjected to multivariate analysis with logistic regression. This revealed prematurity as the only risk factor that is a significant predictor of referral outcome in hearing screening outcome with TOAE with a negative predictive value of 12.61.</p></sec></sec><sec id="s4"><title>4. Discussion</title><p>The main findings in this study were an overall referral rate of 8.5% suggesting a prevalence of 85 per 1000 and prematurity emerged to be a significant predictor of referral outcome in TEOAE. It is also profound to note the difference between the referral rate at the first stage screening which was 29% and the second stage, 8.5%.</p><table-wrap id="table4"  position="float"><object-id pub-id-type="pii">Table 4</object-id><label>Table 4</label><caption><p>. Association between Risk Factors and TOAE Referrals</p></caption><table><thead><tr><th align="center" valign="middle"  rowspan="2"  >Risk Factor</th><th align="center" valign="middle"  colspan="2"  >Referred</th><th align="center" valign="middle"  colspan="2"  >Passed</th><th align="center" valign="middle"  rowspan="2"  >Level of Significance</th><th align="center" valign="middle"  rowspan="2"  >Odds Ratio/Risk Estimate</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Yes</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >No</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Yes</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >No</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Emergency Caesarean Section</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >12</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >7</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >130</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >50</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.28 (NS)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1.52</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Birth Asphyxia</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >2</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >29</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >13</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >321</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.37 (NS)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1.70</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Prematurity</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >14</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >17</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >38</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >296</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.00 (S)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >6.40</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Multiple Birth</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >8</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >23</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >24</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >310</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.03 (S)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >4.49</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Jaundice</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >6</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >25</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >10</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >324</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.01 (S)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >7.78</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Neonatal Sepsis</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >6</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >25</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >30</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >304</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.07 (NS)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >2.43</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Birth Weight &lt; 1.5 kg</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >5</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >26</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >8</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >326</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.03 (S)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >7.83</td></tr></tbody></table></table-wrap><p>NS—Not Significant; S—Significant.</p><table-wrap id="table5"  position="float"><object-id pub-id-type="pii">Table 5</object-id><label>Table 5</label><caption><p>. Logistic regression analysis of association between the risk factors and TOAE Screening</p></caption><table><thead><tr><th align="center" valign="middle" >Risk Factor</th><th align="center" valign="middle" >Frequency</th><th align="center" valign="middle" >(β) Beta Weight</th><th align="center" valign="middle" >Level of Significance (NS/S)</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Prematurity</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Yes 52 No 313</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >−12.61</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.02 (S)</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Jaundice</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Yes 16 No 349</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >−0.85</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.24 (NS)</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Multiple Birth</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Yes 32 No 333</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >−0.78</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.15 (NS)</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Birth Weight &lt; 1.5 kg</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Yes 13 No 352</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >−0.27</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.73 (NS)</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Constant</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Nil</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >2.91</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.00 (NS)</td></tr></tbody></table></table-wrap><p>NS—Not Significant; S—Significant.</p><p>The overall prevalence rate of referral in this report is low compared with the study of Olusanya et al. [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.48301-ref13">13</xref>] who reported a referral rate of 18% with TEOAE. On the other hand, the referral rate of 29% at the first stage is high compared to figure of 11% to 12% reported screening programmes from other developing countries such as Malaysia [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.48301-ref14">14</xref>] South Africa [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.48301-ref15">15</xref>] and Oman [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.48301-ref16">16</xref>] . The referral rates for OAEs are usually age dependent and highest within the first 24 hours of birth due to middle ear fluid, negative ear pressure or debris in the ear canals [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.48301-ref3">3</xref>] . The fact that majority (47%) of the babies in this study were screened in the first day of life might account for the higher figure in this study. However, Ng et al. reported a referral rate of 59.1% after a first-stage screening with Distortion-Product Otoacoustic Emissions (DPOAE) testing in the first four days of life in Hong Kong<sup> </sup>[<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.48301-ref17">17</xref>] . The significantly higher prevalence of referral rate associated with presence of risk factors suggests the need for continued effort at effective primary care programme to curb these risk factors and control the prevalence of hearing impairment. Our finding is also corroborated by other studies [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.48301-ref18">18</xref>] -[<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.48301-ref20">20</xref>] . In Philippine General hospital, where the referral rate was 33% and 11% in high risk and non-high risk population [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.48301-ref20">20</xref>] , similarly, in New York State UNHS demonstration project, a prevalence of 2/1000 was identified with 61% being from the neonatal intensive care units [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.48301-ref19">19</xref>] .</p><p>While all children with risk factors may not develop PCEHL, a greater percentage of those with PCEHL usually manifest these risk factors. In this study, 61% of those referred with had one or more risk factors. Among the independent risk factors that were found to be significant prematurity appeared to be particularly predictive of referral outcome with a percentage predictive value of 12.6. This also shows the burden of prematurity and its contribution neonatal mortality. In 2005, 12.9 million births, or 9.6% of all births worldwide, were preterm and about 85% of these preterm births were concentrated in Africa and Asia [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.48301-ref21">21</xref>] . Indeed Nigeria is one of the ten countries that accounted for more than 60% of the world’s preterm prevalence with more than 250,000 preterm deliveries reported in 2010 [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.48301-ref22">22</xref>] . Furthermore it has been reported to account for about half of the neonatal death in Nigeria [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.48301-ref23">23</xref>] .</p><p>Olusanya [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.48301-ref24">24</xref>] reported found hyperbilirubinaemia a significant risk factor as in our study. Similarly, our findings compare with the finding of Korreswho reported low birth weight, prematurity and mechanical ventilation for more than 24 hours were significant factors for failing hearing screening in the intensive care baby unit [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.48301-ref25">25</xref>] . However in this study, none of the participant was mechanically ventilated. Pereira in Sao Paulo [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.48301-ref26">26</xref>] also reported that a gestational age of less than 30 months and low birth weight of less than 1500 g were important variables to the possibility of failure in hearing screening of pre-term infants. Hernandez [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.48301-ref27">27</xref>] reported the main factors for hearing loss from his study as prematurity, craniofacial anomalies, mechanical ventilation. WhileSrisuparp from Thailand [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.48301-ref28">28</xref>] found the significant independent risk factors in his study of a population of high risk infants for hearing loss as being congenital craniofacial anomalies and mechanical ventilation greater than 5 days. Craniofacial anomalies however were not significant in this study unlike the findings in their studies.</p><p>The drop-out rate between the first and second stage screening in this study (16%) is lower than the 43% reported in the study by Olusanya et al. [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.48301-ref13">13</xref>] and the 60% reported in the South African Study [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.48301-ref15">15</xref>] . This may be attributed to the fact that the second screening was tied to the 6 weeks post natal clinic which has to be attended before birth certificate is issued out to the parents, also repeated phone calls were made to the parents to remind them about the re-screening when it was almost due; helped in the reduction.</p><p>Possible reasons for non-attendance varied from the death of the child, difficulty of mothers with taking time off work, relocation of mother and child out of Lagos. It was also not unlikely that prevailing superstitious beliefs about childhood hearing loss and the predominant preference for traditional medicine may have contributed to some follow-up default [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.48301-ref29">29</xref>] . Few mothers who were prompted to return for follow-up through personal contacts claimed that they forgot the appointments and were perhaps also overwhelmed by the joy of an apparently normal baby with no obvious signs of a hearing impairment. In planning effective coverage of NHS it is important to consider the timing of the screening in order to get a high proportion of the children. The best time seems immediate period after delivery, although postnatal period could also be targeted, although Olusanya et al. targeted a vaccination programme in their report.</p></sec><sec id="s5"><title>5. Conclusion</title><p>In conclusion, this work has found an overall referral rate of 8.5% suggesting a prevalence of 85 per 1000 with prematurity as a significant predictor, among other risk factors associated with referral outcome in TEOAE. Our findings call for the commencement of NHS and further strengthening of the public health measures in the developing countries.</p></sec></body><back><ref-list><title>References</title><ref id="scirp.48301-ref1"><label>1</label><mixed-citation publication-type="journal" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>KEMP</surname><given-names> D.T. </given-names></name>,<etal>et al</etal>. (<year>1978</year>)<article-title>STIMULATED ACOUSTIC EMISSIONS FROM THE HUMAN AUDITORY SYSTEM</article-title><source> JOURNAL OF THE ACOUSTICAL SOCIETY OF AMERICA</source><volume> 64</volume>,<fpage> 1386</fpage>-<lpage>1391</lpage>.<pub-id pub-id-type="doi">HTTP://DX.DOI.ORG/10.1121/1.382104</pub-id></mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.48301-ref2"><label>2</label><mixed-citation publication-type="journal" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>BALKANY</surname><given-names> T.</given-names></name>,<name name-style="western"><surname> TELISCHI</surname><given-names> F.F.</given-names></name>,<name name-style="western"><surname> MCCOY</surname><given-names> M.S.</given-names></name>,<name name-style="western"><surname> LONSBURY MARTIN</surname><given-names> B.L. </given-names></name>,<name name-style="western"><surname> MARTIN</surname><given-names> G.K. </given-names></name>,<etal>et al</etal>. (<year>1994</year>)<article-title>BALKANY, T., TELISCHI, F.F., MCCOY, M.S., LONSBURY MARTIN, B.L. AND MARTIN, G.K.  OTOACOUSTIC EMISSION IN OTOLOGIC PRACTICE</article-title><source> AMERICAN JOURNAL OF OTOLARYNGOLOGY</source><volume> 15</volume>,<fpage> 29</fpage>-<lpage>38</lpage>.<pub-id pub-id-type="doi"></pub-id></mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.48301-ref3"><label>3</label><mixed-citation publication-type="journal" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>NORTON</surname><given-names> S.J. </given-names></name>,<etal>et al</etal>. (<year>1993</year>)<article-title>APPLICATION OF TRANSIENT EVOKED OTOACOUSTIC EMISSION TO A PAEDIATRIC POPULATION</article-title><source> EAR AND HEARING</source><volume> 14</volume>,<fpage> 64</fpage>-<lpage>73</lpage>.<pub-id pub-id-type="doi">HTTP://DX.DOI.ORG/10.1097/00003446-199302000-00009</pub-id></mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.48301-ref4"><label>4</label><mixed-citation publication-type="journal" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>DEL BUONO</surname><given-names> Z.G.</given-names></name>,<name name-style="western"><surname> MININNI</surname><given-names> F.</given-names></name>,<name name-style="western"><surname> DELVECCHIO</surname><given-names> M.</given-names></name>,<name name-style="western"><surname> PANNACCIULLI</surname><given-names> C. </given-names></name>,<name name-style="western"><surname> MININNI</surname><given-names> S. </given-names></name>,<etal>et al</etal>. (<year>2005</year>)<article-title>DEL BUONO, Z.G., MININNI, F., DELVECCHIO, M., PANNACCIULLI, C. AND MININNI, S.  NEONATAL HEARING SCREENING DURING THE FIRST AND SECOND DAY OF LIFE</article-title><source> MINERVA PEDIATRICA</source><volume> 57</volume>,<fpage> 167</fpage>-<lpage>172</lpage>.<pub-id pub-id-type="doi"></pub-id></mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.48301-ref5"><label>5</label><mixed-citation publication-type="journal" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>HERGILS</surname><given-names> L. </given-names></name>,<etal>et al</etal>. (<year>2007</year>)<article-title>ANALYSIS OF MEASUREMENTS FROM THE FIRST SWEDISH UNIVERSAL NEONATAL HEARING SCREENING PROGRAM</article-title><source> INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF AUDIOLOGY</source><volume> 46</volume>,<fpage> 680</fpage>-<lpage>685</lpage>.<pub-id pub-id-type="doi">HTTP://DX.DOI.ORG/10.1080/14992020701459868</pub-id></mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.48301-ref6"><label>6</label><mixed-citation publication-type="journal" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>BALKANY</surname><given-names> T.</given-names></name>,<name name-style="western"><surname> TELISCHI</surname><given-names> F.F.</given-names></name>,<name name-style="western"><surname> MCCOY</surname><given-names> M.S.</given-names></name>,<name name-style="western"><surname> LONSBURY MARTIN</surname><given-names> B.L. </given-names></name>,<name name-style="western"><surname> MARTIN</surname><given-names> G.K. </given-names></name>,<etal>et al</etal>. (<year>1994</year>)<article-title>BALKANY, T., TELISCHI, F.F., MCCOY, M.S., LONSBURY MARTIN, B.L. AND MARTIN, G.K.  OTOACOUSTIC EMISSION IN OTOLOGIC PRACTICE</article-title><source> AMERICAN JOURNAL OF OTOLARYNGOLOGY</source><volume> 15</volume>,<fpage> 29</fpage>-<lpage>38</lpage>.<pub-id pub-id-type="doi"></pub-id></mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.48301-ref7"><label>7</label><mixed-citation publication-type="journal" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>SULEIMAN</surname><given-names> A.O.</given-names></name>,<name name-style="western"><surname> SULEIMAN</surname><given-names> B.M.</given-names></name>,<name name-style="western"><surname> ABDULMAJID</surname><given-names> U.F.</given-names></name>,<name name-style="western"><surname> SULEIMAN</surname><given-names> M.R.</given-names></name>,<name name-style="western"><surname> MUSTAPHA</surname><given-names> A.Y.</given-names></name>,<name name-style="western"><surname> AFOLABI</surname><given-names> O.A.</given-names></name>,<name name-style="western"><surname> YAKUBU</surname><given-names> L.H.</given-names></name>,<name name-style="western"><surname> NATHAL</surname><given-names> C.</given-names></name>,<name name-style="western"><surname> MOHAMMED</surname><given-names> G.M. </given-names></name>,<name name-style="western"><surname> LASISI</surname><given-names> A.O. </given-names></name>,<etal>et al</etal>. (<year>2014</year>)<article-title>PAEDIATRIC COCHLEAR IMPLANTATION IN NORTH-WESTERN NIGERIA— CASE REPORT AND REVIEW OF OUR CHALLENGES</article-title><source> INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF PEDIATRIC OTORHINOLARYNGOLOGY</source><volume> 78</volume>,<fpage> 363</fpage>-<lpage>365</lpage>.<pub-id pub-id-type="doi">HTTP://DX.DOI.ORG/10.1016/J.IJPORL.2013.10.061</pub-id></mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.48301-ref8"><label>8</label><mixed-citation publication-type="journal" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>OYEDEJI</surname><given-names> G.A. </given-names></name>,<etal>et al</etal>. (<year>1985</year>)<article-title>SOCIO-ECONOMIC AND CULTURAL BACKGROUND OF THE HOSPITALIZED CHILDREN IN ILESHA</article-title><source> NIG J PAED</source><volume> 12</volume>,<fpage> 111</fpage>-<lpage>117</lpage>.<pub-id pub-id-type="doi"></pub-id></mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.48301-ref9"><label>9</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH. MINNESOTA NEWBORN HEARING SCREENING PROGRAM HOME PAGE—PROTOCOLS FOR ORGANIZATION AND ADMINISTRATION OF UNIVERSAL NEWBORN HEARING SCREENING PROGRAMS. HTTP://WWW.HEALTHSTATE.MN.US:80/DIVS/FH/MCH/UNHS/INDEX.HTML</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.48301-ref10"><label>10</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">MAICO DIAGNOSTICS USA (2003) OPERATING INSTRUCTIONS: ERO-SCAN OAE TEST SYSTEM. ETYMOTIC RESEARCH, INC., EDEN PRAIRIE.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.48301-ref11"><label>11</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">MAICO DIAGNOSTICS GMBH (2008) OPERATING INSTRUCTIONS: MB 11 BERAPHONE. MAICO, BERLIN.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.48301-ref12"><label>12</label><mixed-citation publication-type="journal" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>ZHANG</surname><given-names> V.W. </given-names></name>,<name name-style="western"><surname> MCPHERSON</surname><given-names> B. </given-names></name>,<etal>et al</etal>. (<year>2008</year>)<article-title>A REVIEW OF OTOACOUSTIC EMISSION SCREENING TECHNOLOGY</article-title><source> AUDIOLOGICAL MEDICINE</source><volume> 6</volume>,<fpage> 100</fpage>-<lpage>114</lpage>.<pub-id pub-id-type="doi">HTTP://DX.DOI.ORG/10.1080/16513860701633326</pub-id></mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.48301-ref13"><label>13</label><mixed-citation publication-type="journal" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>OLUSANYA</surname><given-names> B.O. </given-names></name>,<name name-style="western"><surname> OKOLO</surname><given-names> A.A. </given-names></name>,<etal>et al</etal>. (<year>2006</year>)<article-title>EARLY HEARING DETECTION AT IMMUNIZATION CLINICS IN DEVELOPING COUNTRIES</article-title><source> INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF PEDIATRIC OTORHINOLARYNGOLOGY</source><volume> 70</volume>,<fpage> 1495</fpage>-<lpage>1498</lpage>.<pub-id pub-id-type="doi">HTTP://DX.DOI.ORG/10.1016/J.IJPORL.2006.04.002</pub-id></mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.48301-ref14"><label>14</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">ABDULLAH, A., HAZIM, M.Y., ALMYZAN, A., JAMILAH, A.G., ROSLIN, S., ET AL. (2006) NEWBORN HEARING SCREENING: EXPERIENCE IN A MALAYSIAN HOSPITAL. SINGAPORE MEDICAL JOURNAL, 47, 60-64.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.48301-ref15"><label>15</label><mixed-citation publication-type="journal" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>SWANEPOEL</surname><given-names> D.W.</given-names></name>,<name name-style="western"><surname> HUGO</surname><given-names> R. </given-names></name>,<name name-style="western"><surname> LOUW</surname><given-names> B. </given-names></name>,<etal>et al</etal>. (<year>2006</year>)<article-title>INFANT HEARING SCREENING AT IMMUNIZATION CLINICS IN SOUTH AFRICA</article-title><source> INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF PEDIATRIC OTORHINOLARYNGOLOGY</source><volume> 70</volume>,<fpage> 1241</fpage>-<lpage>1249</lpage>.<pub-id pub-id-type="doi">HTTP://DX.DOI.ORG/10.1016/J.IJPORL.2006.01.002</pub-id></mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.48301-ref16"><label>16</label><mixed-citation publication-type="journal" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>KH</surname><given-names>EKAR</given-names></name>,<name name-style="western"><surname> R.</surname><given-names> KHABORI</given-names></name>,<name name-style="western"><surname> M.</surname><given-names> MOHAMMED</given-names></name>,<name name-style="western"><surname> A.J. </surname><given-names> GUPTA</given-names></name>,<name name-style="western"><surname> R. </surname><given-names>  </given-names></name>,<etal>et al</etal>. (<year>2006</year>)<article-title>NEONATAL SCREENING FOR HEARING IMPAIRMENT: THE OMAN EXPERIENCE</article-title><source> INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF PEDIATRIC OTORHINOLARYNGOLOGY</source><volume> 70</volume>,<fpage> 663</fpage>-<lpage>670</lpage>.<pub-id pub-id-type="doi">HTTP://DX.DOI.ORG/10.1016/J.IJPORL.2005.08.020</pub-id></mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.48301-ref17"><label>17</label><mixed-citation publication-type="journal" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>NG</surname><given-names> P.K.</given-names></name>,<name name-style="western"><surname> HUI</surname><given-names> Y.</given-names></name>,<name name-style="western"><surname> LAM</surname><given-names> B.C.</given-names></name>,<name name-style="western"><surname> GOH</surname><given-names> W.H. </given-names></name>,<name name-style="western"><surname> YEUNG</surname><given-names> C.Y. </given-names></name>,<etal>et al</etal>. (<year>2004</year>)<article-title>NG, P.K., HUI, Y., LAM, B.C., GOH, W.H. AND YEUNG, C.Y.  FEASIBILITY OF IMPLEMENTING A UNIVERSAL NEONATAL HEARING SCREENING PROGRAMME USING DISTORTION PRODUCT OTOACOUSTIC EMISSION DETECTION AT A UNIVERSITY HOSPITAL IN HONG KONG</article-title><source> HONG KONG MEDICAL JOURNAL</source><volume> 10</volume>,<fpage> 6</fpage>-<lpage>13</lpage>.<pub-id pub-id-type="doi"></pub-id></mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.48301-ref18"><label>18</label><mixed-citation publication-type="journal" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>NIE</surname><given-names> W.Y.</given-names></name>,<name name-style="western"><surname> GONG</surname><given-names> L.X.</given-names></name>,<name name-style="western"><surname> LIU</surname><given-names> Y.J.</given-names></name>,<name name-style="western"><surname> XIANG</surname><given-names> L.L.</given-names></name>,<name name-style="western"><surname> LIN</surname><given-names> Q.</given-names></name>,<name name-style="western"><surname> QI</surname><given-names> Y.S. </given-names></name>,<name name-style="western"><surname> NIE</surname><given-names> Y.J. </given-names></name>,<etal>et al</etal>. (<year>2003</year>)<article-title>NIE, W.Y., GONG, L.X., LIU, Y.J., XIANG, L.L., LIN, Q., QI, Y.S. AND NIE, Y.J.  HEARING SCREENING OF 10,501 NEWBORNS</article-title><source> ZHONGHUA YI XUE ZA ZHI</source><volume> 83</volume>,<fpage> 274</fpage>-<lpage>277</lpage>.<pub-id pub-id-type="doi"></pub-id></mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.48301-ref19"><label>19</label><mixed-citation publication-type="journal" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>DALZELL</surname><given-names> L.</given-names></name>,<name name-style="western"><surname> ORL</surname><given-names>O</given-names></name>,<name name-style="western"><surname> M.</surname><given-names> MACDONALD</given-names></name>,<name name-style="western"><surname> M.</surname><given-names> BERG</given-names></name>,<name name-style="western"><surname> A.</surname><given-names> BRADLEY</given-names></name>,<name name-style="western"><surname> M.</surname><given-names> CACACE</given-names></name>,<name name-style="western"><surname> A.</surname><given-names> ET AL. </given-names></name>,<etal>et al</etal>. (<year>2000</year>)<article-title>THE NEW YORK STATE UNIVERSAL NEWBORN HEARING SCREENING DEMONSTRATION PROJECT: AGES OF HEARING LOSS IDENTIFICATION, HEARING AID FITTING, AND ENROLMENT IN EARLY INTERVENTION</article-title><source> EAR &amp; HEARING</source><volume> 21</volume>,<fpage> 118</fpage>-<lpage>130</lpage>.<pub-id pub-id-type="doi">HTTP://DX.DOI.ORG/10.1097/00003446-200004000-00006</pub-id></mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.48301-ref20"><label>20</label><mixed-citation publication-type="journal" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>QUINTOS</surname><given-names> M.R.</given-names></name>,<name name-style="western"><surname> ISLETA</surname><given-names> P.F.</given-names></name>,<name name-style="western"><surname> CHIONG</surname><given-names> C.C. </given-names></name>,<name name-style="western"><surname> ABES</surname><given-names> G.T. </given-names></name>,<etal>et al</etal>. (<year>2003</year>)<article-title>QUINTOS, M.R., ISLETA, P.F., CHIONG, C.C. AND ABES, G.T.  NEWBORN HEARING SCREENING USING THE EVOKED OTOACOUSTIC EMISSION: THE PHILIPPINE GENERAL HOSPITAL EXPERIENCE</article-title><source> SOUTHEAST ASIAN JOURNAL OF TROPICAL MEDICINE AND PUBLIC HEALTH</source><volume> 34</volume>,<fpage> 231</fpage>-<lpage>233</lpage>.<pub-id pub-id-type="doi"></pub-id></mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.48301-ref21"><label>21</label><mixed-citation publication-type="journal" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>BECK</surname><given-names> S.</given-names></name>,<name name-style="western"><surname> WOJDYLA</surname><given-names> D.</given-names></name>,<name name-style="western"><surname> SAY</surname><given-names> L.</given-names></name>,<name name-style="western"><surname> BETRAN</surname><given-names> A.P.</given-names></name>,<name name-style="western"><surname> MERIALDI</surname><given-names> M.</given-names></name>,<name name-style="western"><surname> REQUEJO</surname><given-names> J.H.</given-names></name>,<name name-style="western"><surname> RUBENS</surname><given-names> C.</given-names></name>,<name name-style="western"><surname> MENON</surname><given-names> R. </given-names></name>,<name name-style="western"><surname> VAN LOOK</surname><given-names> P.F.A. </given-names></name>,<etal>et al</etal>. (<year>2010</year>)<article-title>THE WORLDWIDE INCIDENCE OF PRETERM BIRTH: A SYSTEMATIC REVIEW OF MATERNAL MORTALITY AND MORBIDITY</article-title><source> BULLETIN OF THE WORLD HEALTH ORGANIZATION</source><volume> 88</volume>,<fpage> 31</fpage>-<lpage>38</lpage>.<pub-id pub-id-type="doi">HTTP://DX.DOI.ORG/10.2471/BLT.08.062554</pub-id></mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.48301-ref22"><label>22</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">BLENCOWE, H., COUSENS, S., CHOU, D., ESTERGAARD, M.O., SAY, L., MOLLER, A.B., KINNEY, M. AND LAWN, J. (2013) BORN TOO SOON: THE GLOBAL EPIDEMIOLOGY OF 15 MILLION PRETERM BIRTHS. REPRODUCTIVE HEALTH, 10, S2.HTTP://DX.DOI.ORG/10.1186/1742-4755-10-S1-S2</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.48301-ref23"><label>23</label><mixed-citation publication-type="journal" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>GUERRIER</surname><given-names> G.</given-names></name>,<name name-style="western"><surname> OLUYIDE</surname><given-names> B.</given-names></name>,<name name-style="western"><surname> KERAMAROU</surname><given-names> M. </given-names></name>,<name name-style="western"><surname> GRAIS</surname><given-names> R. </given-names></name>,<etal>et al</etal>. (<year>2013</year>)<article-title>HIGH MATERNAL AND NEONATAL MORTALITY RATES IN NORTHERN NIGERIA: AN 8-MONTH OBSERVATIONAL STUDY</article-title><source> INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF WOMEN’S HEALTH</source><volume> 2013</volume>,<fpage> 495</fpage>-<lpage>499</lpage>.<pub-id pub-id-type="doi">HTTP://DX.DOI.ORG/10.2147/IJWH.S48179</pub-id></mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.48301-ref24"><label>24</label><mixed-citation publication-type="journal" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>OLUSANYA</surname><given-names> B.O. </given-names></name>,<etal>et al</etal>. (<year>2009</year>)<article-title>NEWBORNS AT RISK OF SENSORINEURAL HEARING LOSS IN LOW-INCOME COUNTRIES</article-title><source> ARCHIVES OF DISEASE IN CHILDHOOD</source><volume> 94</volume>,<fpage> 227</fpage>-<lpage>230</lpage>.<pub-id pub-id-type="doi"></pub-id></mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.48301-ref25"><label>25</label><mixed-citation publication-type="journal" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>KORRES</surname><given-names> S.</given-names></name>,<name name-style="western"><surname> NIKOLOPOULOS</surname><given-names> T.P.</given-names></name>,<name name-style="western"><surname> KOMKOTOU</surname><given-names> V.</given-names></name>,<name name-style="western"><surname> BALATSOURAS</surname><given-names> D.</given-names></name>,<name name-style="western"><surname> K</surname><given-names>ILOROS</given-names></name>,<name name-style="western"><surname> D.</surname><given-names> ET AL. </given-names></name>,<etal>et al</etal>. (<year>2005</year>)<article-title>NEWBORN HEARING SCREENING: EFFECTIVENESS, IMPORTANCE OF HIGH-RISK FACTORS, AND CHARACTERISTICS OF INFANTS IN THE NEONATAL INTENSIVE CARE UNIT AND WELL-BABY NURSERY</article-title><source> OTOLOGY &amp; NEUROTOLOGY</source><volume> 26</volume>,<fpage> 1186</fpage>-<lpage>1190</lpage>.<pub-id pub-id-type="doi">HTTP://DX.DOI.ORG/10.1097/01.MAO.0000184602.94677.41</pub-id></mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.48301-ref26"><label>26</label><mixed-citation publication-type="journal" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>PEREIRA</surname><given-names> P.K.</given-names></name>,<name name-style="western"><surname> ADE</surname><given-names> S.M.</given-names></name>,<name name-style="western"><surname> VIEIRA</surname><given-names> M.R. </given-names></name>,<name name-style="western"><surname> AZEVEDO</surname><given-names> M.F. </given-names></name>,<etal>et al</etal>. (<year>2007</year>)<article-title>PEREIRA, P.K., ADE, S.M., VIEIRA, M.R. AND AZEVEDO, M.F.  NEWBORN HEARING SCREENING PROGRAM: ASSOCIATION BETWEEN HEARING LOSS AND RISK FACTORS</article-title><source> PRO FONO</source><volume> 19</volume>,<fpage> 267</fpage>-<lpage>278</lpage>.<pub-id pub-id-type="doi"></pub-id></mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.48301-ref27"><label>27</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">HERNÁNDEZ-HERRERA, R.J., HERNÁNDEZ-AGUIRRE, L.M., CASTILLO-MARTÍNEZ, N.E., DE LA ROSA-MIRELES, N., MARTÍNEZ-ELIZONDO, J., ET AL. (2007) HEARING SCREENING AND DIAGNOSIS OF HEARING LOSS: HIGH RISK VERSUS LOW RISK NEONATES. REV MED INST MEX SEGURO SOC, 45, 421-426.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.48301-ref28"><label>28</label><mixed-citation publication-type="journal" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>SRISUPARP</surname><given-names> P.</given-names></name>,<name name-style="western"><surname> GLEEBBUR</surname><given-names> R.</given-names></name>,<name name-style="western"><surname> NGERNCHAM</surname><given-names> S.</given-names></name>,<name name-style="western"><surname> CHONPRACHA</surname><given-names> J. </given-names></name>,<name name-style="western"><surname> SINGKAMPONG</surname><given-names> J. </given-names></name>,<etal>et al</etal>. (<year>2005</year>)<article-title>SRISUPARP, P., GLEEBBUR, R., NGERNCHAM, S., CHONPRACHA, J. AND SINGKAMPONG, J.  HIGH-RISK NEONATAL HEARING SCREENING PROGRAM USING AUTOMATED SCREENING DEVICE PERFORMED BY TRAINED NURSING PERSONNEL AT SIRIRAJ HOSPITAL: YIELD AND FEASIBILITY</article-title><source> JOURNAL OF THE MEDICAL ASSOCIATION OF THAILAND</source><volume> 88</volume>,<fpage> 176</fpage>-<lpage>182</lpage>.<pub-id pub-id-type="doi"></pub-id></mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.48301-ref29"><label>29</label><mixed-citation publication-type="journal" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>OLUSANYA</surname><given-names> B.O.</given-names></name>,<name name-style="western"><surname> WIRZ</surname><given-names> S.L. </given-names></name>,<name name-style="western"><surname> LUXON</surname><given-names> L.M. </given-names></name>,<etal>et al</etal>. (<year>2008</year>)<article-title>HOSPITAL-BASED UNIVERSAL NEWBORN HEARING SCREENING FOR EARLY DETECTION OF PERMANENT CONGENITAL HEARING LOSS IN LAGOS, NIGERIA</article-title><source> INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF PEDIATRIC OTORHINOLARYNGOLOGY</source><volume> 72</volume>,<fpage> 991</fpage>-<lpage>1001</lpage>.<pub-id pub-id-type="doi">HTTP://DX.DOI.ORG/10.1016/J.IJPORL.2008.03.004</pub-id></mixed-citation></ref></ref-list></back></article>