SLPCohortTrends in hearing2016

Evidence for a Right-Ear Advantage in Newborn Hearing Screening Results.

Daphne Ari-Even Roth, Minka Hildesheimer, Ilan Roziner and 1 others

PMID 27927982

WHAT IT FOUND

Newborns who failed one ear first passed the right ear more often (235 of 387) than the left (152 of 387), especially when the right ear was tested first.

Key findings

01In the group that initially failed one ear, 235 of 387 passed only the right ear and 152 of 387 passed only the left ear.

02Pass rates were higher in the first tested ear than in the second tested ear: 253 of 387 first-tested ears passed versus 134 of 387 second-tested ears.

03When the right ear was tested first, 147 of 193 passed the right ear; when the left ear was tested first, 88 of 194 passed the right ear.

STILL TO COME

How it was doneWhat they foundWhat it means for SLPs

Read the rest of this summary

You get three full summaries a month, free, and we do not ask for a card. Search, the TL;DRs and your library stay unlimited either way.

Already have one?

What it does not show

The study was retrospective and did not have data on ear canal debris or middle ear status, so possible physical causes of lower pass rates were not measured. The newborns who failed one ear and later passed both ears were tested at mean age 20.37 hours, while the control newborns were tested at mean age 24.97 hours, so age at testing may have influenced response levels. Testing order was not randomly assigned; the more accessible ear was tested first, so the order effect may be mixed with how the baby was positioned or how the second ear test affected the baby. The study group included only newborns who eventually passed both ears, so it does not speak to newborns with persistent unilateral refer.

The easy way to misread this

Do not read a right-ear pass advantage as proof of permanent hearing loss. All newborns in the study group later passed both ears, and the first tested ear passed more often, so testing order and early postnatal screening conditions may explain the pattern.

Read it on PubMed →