***TASK*** the task is to summarize an input biomedical literature in six sentences 
    ***INPUT*** the input is a biomedical literature 
    ***OUTPUT*** the output is the summary of an input biomedical literature in six sentences 
    ***DOCUMENTATION*** 
    ***EXAMPLES*** 
    Input: The aim of this study is to compare pass rates for two different hearing screening methods in well newborns as a function of age .  Hearing screening tests were performed on 400 ears in 200 healthy newborn infants at the University of california-Irvine Medical Center . The screening methods used were automated auditory brainstem response ( ABR ) and click evoked otoacoustic emissions ( EOAE ) .  The infants ' ages ranged from 5 to 120 h , with an average age of 24 h. Overall , 88.5 % of ears passed the ABR screen , and 79 % passed the EOAE screen . There was no significant difference in the ABR pass rate for infants aged 0 - 24 h of age as compared with infants aged > 24 h compared with the group aged 0 - 24 h ( P < 0.01 ) . Results are compared with earlier studies and implication s for universal hearing screening are discussed OBJECTIVE The objective of this study was to evaluate the accuracy and cost effectiveness of three different methods of hearing screening in newborns . DESIGN A prospect i ve , r and omized cohort design was used . One hundred and five newborns were tested in this preliminary study . SETTING The study was conducted in a tertiary care hospital setting in both the well baby and special care nurseries . METHODS Consenting subjects had their  hearing tested  using automated auditory brainstem response ( AABR ) , distortion-product otoacoustic emissions , and click-evoked otoacoustic emissions . The time to perform the tests was recorded and the cost of each test was calculated . MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES The main outcomes measured were the time taken to perform each test , the pass/fail rate for each test , and the estimated cost of the tests . RESULTS In this small cohort of patients , we found that AABR was the most accurate test , but it took longer to perform and was more expensive than either of the otoacoustic emission tests . However , the sensitivity and specificity of otoacoustic emissions were less than that of AABR . Test time decreased as the examiner gained experience , and we anticipate that experience will also result in better accuracy for the otoacoustic emission tests . CONCLUSIONS Hearing screening in a hospital-based newborn population is both feasible and cost effective . Although AABR was more expensive , its better accuracy must be considered . As technology improves , the cost of all three tests will diminish . More robust conclusions can not be made based on this small patient population 
    Output:
    
RESULTS The studies comparing screening versus no screening showed an improvement of speech development of children in the screening group compared with the group without screening .
Early treatment was associated with better language development in comparison to children with later treatment .
The authors concluded that there is a lack of high- quality evidence regarding all elements of newborn hearing screening .
Early identification and early treatment of children with hearing impairments may be associated with advantages in language development .