Various aspects of hearing loss in newborns: A narrative review

Table 2 Studies from various nations using different tools to diagnose hearing loss in newborns

Authors	Country	Year	Sample size	Study method	Data type	Diagnostic tool	Predictor(s)
Malesci et al[7]	Italy	2022	318878	Longitudinal retrospective study	Newborns	UNHS	UNHS is feasible and effective
Chu et al[34]	Taiwan	2015	15345	Retrospective study	Newborns	UNHS; Genetic testing	A genetic profile of the connexin genes and SLC26A4 gene among infants with hearing impairment detected by a UNHS program in Taiwan
Durante et al[42]	Brazil	2021	105	Comparative study	Newborns	Transient-evoked otoacoustic emissions and distortion product otoacoustic emissions	The impact of smoking exposure could be analyzed through transient-evoked otoacoustic emissions in newborns.
Bielecki et al[44]	Poland	2011	5282	Comparative study	Newborns	UNHS	Most common risk factors for hearing loss; Ototoxic drugs; Premature birth; Low birth weight; Intensive care in excess of 7 d
Pitathawatchai et al[53]	Thailand	2023	126	A decision analytical model with a 78-year time horizon	Newborns	UNHS; TNHS	Both tools are cost-effective
Rawlinson et al[57]	Australia	2018	1669	Cohort study	Newborns, Infants	UNHS; CMV testing	Congenital CMV (5.9%) in infants with permanent hearing loss and who did not pass the UNHS
Boppana et al[62]	United States	2010	20448	Comparative study	Newborns	CMV testing	Saliva rapid culture had low sensitivity in comparison with CMV testing with DBS real-time PCR

UNHS: Universal newborn hearing screening; TNHS: Targeted newborn hearing screening; CMV: Cytomegalovirus; PCR: Polymerase chain reaction.