You will be presented with a collection of medical randomized controlled trial (RCT) reports addressing a shared clinical question -- for instance, the efficacy of a medical intervention on a disease or condition. Given the titles and abstracts of these reports, your task is to generate the conclusion of the systematic review article synthesizing the key findings. Your conclusion should be a few sentences long. In your response, include only the conclusion and no other text. The RCT reports are below.



Title 1:
Newborn hearing screening by otoacoustic emissions and automated auditory brainstem response.
Abstract 1:
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


Title 2:
Screening strategies for neonatal hearing loss: which test is best?
Abstract 2:
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
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 .