Prevalence of permanent neonatal hearing impairment: systematic review and Bayesian meta-analysis.

DEAFNESS prevention; HEARING disorder diagnosis; AUDIOMETRY; BANKING industry; CONFIDENCE intervals; HEARING disorders; HEALTH services accessibility; HEALTH status indicators; PATIENT aftercare; INFORMATION storage & retrieval systems; MEDICAL databases; MEDICAL information storage & retrieval systems; INTERNATIONAL agencies; MEDICAL screening; MEDLINE; META-analysis; NEONATAL intensive care; ONLINE information services; POPULATION geography; RESEARCH funding; SYSTEMATIC reviews; SOCIOECONOMIC factors; NEONATAL intensive care units; DISEASE prevalence; HEALTH & social status; DESCRIPTIVE statistics; MIDDLE-income countries; LOW-income countries; CONDUCTIVE hearing loss

ASIA; EUROPE

Objective: To investigate the variance in reported prevalence rates of permanent neonatal hearing impairment (HI) worldwide. Design: A systematic review and meta-analysis was performed on reported prevalence rates of sensorineural and permanent conductive or mixed HI worse than 40 dB in neonates, detected as a result of a screening programme or audiometric study. Study sample: For meta-analysis, 35 articles were selected, 25 from high-income countries and 10 from middle-income countries according to the world bank classification system. Results: The prevalence rate of permanent uni- and bilateral HI worse than 40 dB in neonates varied from 1 to 6 per 1000, the overall prevalence was 2.21 per 1000 [1.71, 2.8]. In NICU populations the prevalence rate was higher with a larger fraction of bilateral cases. Although not significant, prevalence rates were slightly higher in Asia compared to Europe and the number of infants lost to follow-up appeared higher in countries with lower gross national income. Conclusion: Substantial variations exist in prevalence rates of neonatal permanent HI across countries and regions. There is a strong need for more data from low-income countries to identify demographic factors that account for this variability in reported prevalence rates. Reporting these data in a uniform way is advocated. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]