MAGIC纯音筛查法在3~6岁儿童听力筛查应用的可行性探讨

崔庆佳; 葛芳; 韩任杰; 闫瑾; 文铖; 李悦; 代欣; 黄丽辉

doi:10.13201/j.issn.2096-7993.2025.01.004

MAGIC纯音筛查法在3~6岁儿童听力筛查应用的可行性探讨

- 1.
  首都医科大学附属北京康复医院言语吞咽嗓音康复中心(耳鼻喉科)(北京，100144)
- 2.
  石家庄市妇幼保健院耳鼻喉科
- 3.
  首都医科大学附属北京同仁医院北京市耳鼻咽喉科研究所耳鼻咽喉头颈外科学教育部重点实验室

详细信息

通讯作者: 黄丽辉，E-mail：huangpub@126.com

中图分类号: R764.5

收稿日期: 2024-04-09

修回日期: 2024-06-26

刊出日期: 2025-01-03

Feasibility of MAGIC pure tone screening in children aged 3 to 6 years

- 1.
  Rehabilitation Centre of Speech Therapy, Department of Otolaryngology, Beijing, 100144, China
- 2.
  Department of Otolaryngology, Shijiazhuang Maternal and Child Health Care Hospital, Shijiazhuang
- 3.
  Department of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, Beijing Tongren Hospital, Capital Medical University, Beijing Institute of Otolaryngology, Key Laboratory of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, Ministry of Education

More Information

Corresponding author: HUANG Lihui, E-mail: huangpub@126.com

Received Date: 09 April 2024

Revised Date: 26 June 2024

Publish Date: 03 January 2025

摘要

摘要: 目的探讨多选择听觉图形交互式(multiple-choice auditory graphical interactive check，MAGIC)纯音筛查法在3~6岁儿童听力筛查中应用的可行性。方法对366例(732耳)3~6岁儿童采用MAGIC纯音筛查法、筛查型DPOAE和声导抗进行听力筛查，比较3种筛查方法的配合度、筛查时长、通过率及筛查结果的差异性。结果 ① 配合度：MAGIC纯音筛查法为98.6%，筛查型DPOAE为99.5%，声导抗筛查为100%，3者差异有统计学意义(P=0.004)。②筛查时长：MAGIC纯音筛查法为(116.3±59.1) s，筛查型DPOAE为(27.2±19.7) s，声导抗筛查为(24.6±14.6) s，3者及两两之间差异有统计学意义(P < 0.001)。③通过率：MAGIC纯音筛查法为64.7%，筛查型DPOAE为65.4%，声导抗筛查为69.3%，3者及两两之间差异均无统计学意义(均P>0.05)。④差异性：MAGIC纯音筛查法和筛查型DPOAE(P=0.827>0.05)及声导抗(P=0.653>0.05)筛查结果的差异无统计学意义，而筛查型DPOAE和声导抗筛查结果的差异有统计学意义(P < 0.01)。结论 MAGIC纯音筛查法具有较好的可行性，能够综合反应出被筛查儿童的听力水平，可在3~6岁儿童听力筛查中推广应用。
- 听觉图形交互式检查 /
- 畸变产物耳声发射 /
- 声导抗 /
- 配合度 /
- 通过率
Abstract: Objective To explore the feasibility of the multiple-choice auditory graphical interactive check(MAGIC) screening module in childhood hearing screening in children aged 3 to 6 years.Methods A hearing screening was conducted on 366 children(732 ears) aged between 3 and 6 years. The screening methods included MAGIC, DPOAE, and acoustic immittance.The cooperation, screening time, pass rate, and correlation of the three screening methods were compared.Results There was a statistically significant difference in the degree of cooperation among the three screeningmethods(P=0.004).The MAGIC pure tone screening method was 98.6%, the screening DPOAE was 99.5%, and the acoustic immittance screening was 100%. For the screening duration, the MAGIC pure tone screening method was(116.3±59.1)s, the screening DPOAE was(27.2±19.7)s, and the acoustic impedance screening was(24.6±14.6)s. There was a significant statistical significance differences among the three or two groups(P < 0.01). The passing rates of MAGIC pure tone screening, screening DPOAE and acoustic immittance screening were 64.7%, 65.4%, and 69.3%, respectively, and there was no significant statistical difference among the three or two groups(P>0.05). There was no significant difference between MAGIC pure tone screening method and screening DPOAE(P=0.827>0.05), and acoustic impedance(P=0.653>0.05), while the difference between screening DPOAE and acoustic impedance was statistically significant(P < 0.01).Conclusion MAGIC pure sound screening method has good feasibility, can comprehensively reflect the hearing level of screened children, and can be promoted for hearing screening in children aged between 3 and 6 years.
- multiple-choice auditory graphical interactive check /
- distortion product otoacoustic emission /
- acoustic immittance /
- compatibility /
- passing rate

HTML全文

表 1 3种筛查方法配合度及筛查时长的比较

方法	总耳数	完成耳数	未完成耳数	配合度/%	χ²	P
MAGIC纯音筛查法		722	10	98.6
筛查型DPOAE	732	728	4	99.5	10.927	0.004
声导抗		732	0	100.0

下载: 导出CSV

表 2 3种筛查方法的通过率比较

方法	通过耳数	未通过耳数	通过率/%	χ²	P	频率/Hz	通过耳数	未通过耳数	通过率/%	χ²	P
MAGIC纯音筛查法	467	255	64.7			500	557	165	76.1
						1 000	617	105	85.2	52.271	< 0.01
						2 000	659	63	90.0
						4 000	624	98	84.3
筛查型DPOAE	472	256	65.4	4.418	0.110	1 000	650	78	89.3
						2	602	126	82.7	27.982	< 0.01
						3	582	146	79.9
						4	588	140	80.8
声导抗	507	225	69.3			/	/	/	/	/	/

下载: 导出CSV

参考文献(24)

[1]	World Health Organization. World Report on Hearing[R/OL]. Geneva: WHO, 2021[2021030]. https://www.who.int/publications/i/item/worldreportonhearing
[2]	Bower C, Reilly BK, Richerson J, et al. Hearing assessment in infants, children, and adolescents: recommendations beyond neonatal screening[J]. Pediatrics, 2023, 152(3): e2023063288. doi: 10.1542/peds.2023-063288
[3]	Fitzgibbons EJ, Keszegi S, Driscoll C, et al. Childhood hearing loss detected beyond the newborn screen[J]. Int J Audiol, 2023, 62(3): 278-285. doi: 10.1080/14992027.2022.2042606
[4]	Botelho JBL, Carvalho DM, Santos-Melo GZD, et al. Follow-up of children diagnosed with deafness in a neonatal hearing screening program in Manaus[J]. Rev Saude Publica, 2023, 56: 120.
[5]	Lieu JEC, Kenna M, Anne S, et al. Hearing loss in children: a review[J]. JAMA, 2020, 324(21): 2195-2205. doi: 10.1001/jama.2020.17647
[6]	Wood JW, Shaffer AD, Kitsko D, et al. Sudden sensorineural hearing loss in children-management and outcomes: a meta-analysis[J]. Laryngoscope, 2021, 131(2): 425-434. doi: 10.1002/lary.28829
[7]	Duan ML, Xie W, Persson L, et al. Postnatal hearing loss: a study of children who passed neonatal TEOAE hearing screening bilaterally[J]. Acta Otolaryngol, 2022, 142(1): 61-66. doi: 10.1080/00016489.2021.2017476
[8]	Gumbie M, Parkinson B, Dillon H, et al. Cost-effectiveness of screening preschool children for hearing loss in Australia[J]. Ear Hear, 2022, 43(3): 1067-1078. doi: 10.1097/AUD.0000000000001134
[9]	American Academy of Audiology. American Academy of Audiology Childhood Hearing Screening Guidelines[EB/OL]. 2013.
[10]	黄丽辉, 亓贝尔, 李晓璐, 等. 儿童听力保健专科建设专家共识[J]. 中国妇幼健康研究, 2023, 34(12): 1-6.
[11]	Wen C, Zhao XL, Li Y, et al. A systematic review of newborn and childhood hearing screening around the world: comparison and quality assessment of guidelines[J]. BMC Pediatr, 2022, 22(1): 160. doi: 10.1186/s12887-022-03234-0
[12]	朱英男, 吴丹, 苏茜, 等. 武汉市洪山区2760名学龄前儿童耳科体检分析[J]. 武汉大学学报(医学版), 2023, 44(12): 1528-1531.
[13]	孟黎平, 洪琴, 季慧, 等. 南京主城区24 687例2~6岁儿童听力损失结果分析[J]. 中国耳鼻咽喉头颈外科, 2023, 30(1): 18-21.
[14]	张国旺, 张丽萍, 阳海林. 4233例幼儿园中班儿童听力筛查结果分析[J]. 中国妇幼保健, 2021, 36(24): 5755-5757.
[15]	郗昕, 卜行宽. 听力损失分级的变化及对耳科听力干预、公共卫生和残伤评级的影响[J]. 中华耳鼻咽喉头颈外科杂志, 2023, 58(6): 612-620.
[16]	谌国会, 丁海娜, 史伟, 等. 行为测听在儿童主观听力评估中的应用[J]. 临床耳鼻咽喉头颈外科杂志, 2023, 37(3): 173-176. https://lceh.whuhzzs.com/article/doi/10.13201/j.issn.2096-7993.2023.03.003
[17]	吴文瑾, 黄治物, 吕静荣, 等. 智能听力筛查系统在学龄前儿童听力筛查中的应用[J]. 听力学及言语疾病杂志, 2013, 21(2): 118-120.
[18]	崔庆佳, 黄丽辉, 韩任杰, 等. 3~6岁儿童不同听力筛查方法比较[J]. 听力学及言语疾病杂志, 2020, 28(2): 128-132.
[19]	Bowers P, Graydon K, Rance G. Evaluation of a game-based hearing screening program for identifying hearing loss in primary school-aged children[J]. Int J Audiol, 2023, 62(6): 512-520.
[20]	张红利, 张慧, 王金永. 协同干预模式对产科新生儿听力筛查初筛结果的影响[J]. 中国实用医刊, 2022, 49(16): 60-63.
[21]	Skoloudik L, Mejzlik J, Janouch M, et al. Hearing screenings for preschool children: a comparison between whispered voice and pure tone audiogram tests[J]. Int J Pediatr Otorhinolaryngol, 2020, 130: 109798.
[22]	黄美萍, 钱敏飞, 黄治物. 儿童分泌性中耳炎听力学测试及诊断策略[J]. 中华鼻咽喉头颈外科杂志, 2021, 56(6): 680-684.
[23]	周玉晨, 陆玲, 赵宁, 等. 儿童分泌性中耳炎与学习困难的相关性研究[J]. 临床耳鼻咽喉头颈外科杂志, 2023, 37(3): 222-224, 230. https://lceh.whuhzzs.com/article/doi/10.13201/j.issn.2096-7993.2023.03.013
[24]	Sanfins MD, Bertazolli LF, Skarzynski PH, et al. Otoacoustic emissions in children with long-term middle ear disease[J]. Life(Basel), 2020, 10(11): 287.