↓ Skip to main content

Cochleopalpebral reflex: sensitivity and specificity in the auditory screening of newborns discharged from the neonatal intensive care unit

Overview of attention for article published in Boletín Médico del Hospital Infantil de México, June 2021
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
3 X users

Readers on

mendeley
9 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Cochleopalpebral reflex: sensitivity and specificity in the auditory screening of newborns discharged from the neonatal intensive care unit
Published in
Boletín Médico del Hospital Infantil de México, June 2021
DOI 10.24875/bmhim.20000247
Pubmed ID
Authors

Carlos F Martínez Cruz, Mayra N Ramírez-Vargas, Martina A Guido-Campuzano, Patricia García-Alonso-Themann

Abstract

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. 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. 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%. 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.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 9 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 9 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Librarian 1 11%
Student > Bachelor 1 11%
Unknown 7 78%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 1 11%
Medicine and Dentistry 1 11%
Unknown 7 78%