- Email: [email protected]
Newborn hearing screens and SIDS
Early Human Development (2008) 84, 371
a v a i l a b l e a t w w w. s c i e n c e d i r e c t . c o m
w w w. e l s e v i e r. c o m / l o c a t e / e a r l h u m d e v
Letter to the Editor Newborn hearing screens and SIDS
of the results of hearing screening tests until this has been fully evaluated by other investigators.
To the Editor:
References The recent paper by Rubens et al. [1] suggesting that results of newborn transient evoked oto-acoustic emission (TEOAE) hearing screening tests, a currently widely applied test, may provide a marker of susceptibility to SIDS is provocative, but preliminary and unconfirmed. Therefore, we wish to raise the following cautions: the study was retrospective and therefore not predictive of actual risk, the number of SIDS cases was small, and cochlear function was used as an unproven surrogate for vestibular function. Another very significant issue involves the means by which the diagnosis of SIDS was made. This was not stated in the paper, with cases being ‘identified’ in an infant mortality database. While it is quite possible that the cases of SIDS were fully investigated according to standard death scene and autopsy protocols with use of a recognized definition of SIDS such as that promulgated by either the NICHD [2] or the San Diego group [3], this was not mentioned in the text. Unfortunately this is not a rare occurrence, with a recent study demonstrating that 58% of a group of papers dealing with SIDS in 2005 either failed to specify a definition of SIDS, or else used a nonstandard definition [4]. We would ask the authors how the results of their research can be evaluated if their diagnostic parameters have not been specified? In the meantime, we urge parents to continue to follow the Back to Sleep Campaign recommendations for their infants irrespective
[1] Rubens DD, Vohr BR, Tucker R, O'Neil CA, Chung W. Newborn otoacoustic emission hearing screening tests preliminary evidence for a marker of susceptibility to SIDS. Early Hum Dev In press. [Jul 3, Electronic publication ahead of print]. [2] Willinger M, James LS, Catz C. Defining the sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS): deliberations of an expert panel convened by the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development. Pediatr Pathol 1991;11:677–84. [3] Krous HF, Beckwith JB, Byard RW, Rognum TO, Bajanowski T, Corey T, et al. Sudden infant death syndrome and unclassified sudden infant deaths: a definitional and diagnostic approach. Pediatrics 2004;114:234–8. [4] Byard RW, Marshall D. An audit of the use of definitions of sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS). J Forensic Legal Med In press.
0378-3782/$ - see front matter © 2007 Published by Elsevier Ireland Ltd. doi:10.1016/j.earlhumdev.2007.10.003
Henry F. Krous San Diego, CA, USA Corresponding author. E-mail address: [email protected]. Roger W. Byard Adelaide, South Australia, AU 10 September 2007
a v a i l a b l e a t w w w. s c i e n c e d i r e c t . c o m
w w w. e l s e v i e r. c o m / l o c a t e / e a r l h u m d e v
Letter to the Editor Newborn hearing screens and SIDS
of the results of hearing screening tests until this has been fully evaluated by other investigators.
To the Editor:
References The recent paper by Rubens et al. [1] suggesting that results of newborn transient evoked oto-acoustic emission (TEOAE) hearing screening tests, a currently widely applied test, may provide a marker of susceptibility to SIDS is provocative, but preliminary and unconfirmed. Therefore, we wish to raise the following cautions: the study was retrospective and therefore not predictive of actual risk, the number of SIDS cases was small, and cochlear function was used as an unproven surrogate for vestibular function. Another very significant issue involves the means by which the diagnosis of SIDS was made. This was not stated in the paper, with cases being ‘identified’ in an infant mortality database. While it is quite possible that the cases of SIDS were fully investigated according to standard death scene and autopsy protocols with use of a recognized definition of SIDS such as that promulgated by either the NICHD [2] or the San Diego group [3], this was not mentioned in the text. Unfortunately this is not a rare occurrence, with a recent study demonstrating that 58% of a group of papers dealing with SIDS in 2005 either failed to specify a definition of SIDS, or else used a nonstandard definition [4]. We would ask the authors how the results of their research can be evaluated if their diagnostic parameters have not been specified? In the meantime, we urge parents to continue to follow the Back to Sleep Campaign recommendations for their infants irrespective
[1] Rubens DD, Vohr BR, Tucker R, O'Neil CA, Chung W. Newborn otoacoustic emission hearing screening tests preliminary evidence for a marker of susceptibility to SIDS. Early Hum Dev In press. [Jul 3, Electronic publication ahead of print]. [2] Willinger M, James LS, Catz C. Defining the sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS): deliberations of an expert panel convened by the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development. Pediatr Pathol 1991;11:677–84. [3] Krous HF, Beckwith JB, Byard RW, Rognum TO, Bajanowski T, Corey T, et al. Sudden infant death syndrome and unclassified sudden infant deaths: a definitional and diagnostic approach. Pediatrics 2004;114:234–8. [4] Byard RW, Marshall D. An audit of the use of definitions of sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS). J Forensic Legal Med In press.
0378-3782/$ - see front matter © 2007 Published by Elsevier Ireland Ltd. doi:10.1016/j.earlhumdev.2007.10.003
Henry F. Krous San Diego, CA, USA Corresponding author. E-mail address: [email protected]. Roger W. Byard Adelaide, South Australia, AU 10 September 2007