{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.033063427800269905, 'fraction_numerical': 0.037112010796221326, 'mean_word_length': 4.955823293172691, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 2, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Comparison between hearing screening-detected cases and sporadic cases of delayed-onset hearing loss in preschool-age children

Abstract Objective: This study aimed to compare the diagnosis and ages of intervention for cases of delayed-onset hearing loss identified sporadically or via a preschool hearing screening program. Design: Retrospective study with the comparative analysis of two groups of children. Study sample: Cases identified from screening were selected from 34 321 preschool children who underwent screening for delayed-onset hearing loss between October 2009 and May 2011. Sporadic cases of delayed-onset hearing loss were selected from pediatric clinical records. Cases from the first group were excluded from the latter to avoid duplication. Two groups were given the same questionnaire to record risk indicators, diagnosis, and age at intervention. Results: The average age of 26 children at the time of diagnosis in the screening group (52.81 ± 13.23 months) was significantly earlier than in the 33 cases identified in the sporadic group (62.03 ± 12.86 months; p < 0.05). The age at intervention of children with bilateral moderate to severe hearing loss in the screening group (50.40 ± 10.76 months) was also earlier than in the sporadic group (62.73 ± 13.77 months; p < 0.05). Conclusions: Improved rates of early diagnosis could therefore be achieved with hearing screening for preschool children with no significant symptoms of delayed-onset hearing loss.