Screening for hearing loss in the Hong Kong Cantonese-speaking elderly using tablet-based pure-tone and word-in-noise test

Diagnostic Accuracy of Mobile Health-Based Audiometry for the Screening of Hearing Loss in Adults: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Background: Hearing loss is one of the most prevalent chronic health conditions. Traditional pure tone audiometry (PTA) is the gold standard for hearing loss screening, but is not widely available outside specialized clinical centers. Mobile health (mHealth)-based audiometry could improve access and cost-effectiveness, but its diagnostic accuracy varies widely between studies. Therefore, we aimed to evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of mHealth-based audiometry for hearing loss screening in adults compared with traditional PTA. Methods: Ten English and Chinese databases were searched from inception until April 30, 2022. Two researchers independently selected studies, extracted data, and appraised methodological quality. The bivariate random-effects model was adopted to estimate the pooled sensitivity and specificity for each common threshold (i.e., the threshold to define mild or moderate hearing loss). The hierarchical summary receiver operating characteristic model was used to assess the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) across all thresholds. Results: Twenty cohort studies were included. Only one study (n = 109) used the mHealth-based speech recognition test (SRT) as the index test. Nineteen studies (n = 1,656) used mHealth-based PTA as the index test, and all of them were included in the meta-analysis. For detecting mild hearing loss, the pooled sensitivity and specificity were 0.91 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.80-0.96) and 0.90 (95% CI 0.82-0.94), respectively. For detecting moderate hearing loss, the pooled sensitivity and specificity were 0.94 (95% CI 0.87-0.98) and 0.87 (95% CI 0.79-0.93), respectively. For all PTA thresholds, the AUC was 0.96 (95% CI 0.40-1.00). Conclusions: mHealth-based audiometry provided good diagnostic accuracy for screening both mild and moderate hearing loss in adults. Given its high diagnostic accuracy, accessibility, convenience, and cost-effectiveness, it shows enormous potential for hearing loss screening, particularly in primary care sites, low-income regions, and settings with in-person visit limitations. Further work should evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of the mHealth-based SRT tests.

Screening for Hearing Loss in Older Adults: Updated Evidence Report and Systematic Review for the US Preventive Services Task Force

IMPORTANCE

Hearing loss is common in older adults and associated with adverse health and social outcomes.

OBJECTIVE

To update the evidence review on screening for hearing loss in adults 50 years or older to inform the US Preventive Services Task Force.

DATA SOURCES

MEDLINE, Cochrane Library, EMBASE, and trial registries through January 17, 2020; references; and experts; literature surveillance through October 8, 2020.

STUDY SELECTION

English-language studies of accuracy, screening, and interventions for screen-detected or newly detected hearing loss.

DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS

Dual review of abstracts, full-text articles, and study quality. Meta-analysis of screening test accuracy studies.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

Quality of life and function, other health and social outcomes, test accuracy, and harms.

RESULTS

Forty-one studies (N = 26 386) were included, 18 of which were new since the previous review. One trial enrolling US veterans (n = 2305) assessed the benefits of screening; there was no significant difference in the proportion of participants experiencing a minimum clinically important difference in hearing-related function at 1 year (36%-40% in the screened groups vs 36% in the nonscreened group). Thirty-four studies (n = 23 228) evaluated test accuracy. For detecting mild hearing loss (>20-25 dB), single-question screening had a pooled sensitivity of 66% (95% CI, 58%-73%) and a pooled specificity of 76% (95% CI, 68%-83%) (10 studies, n = 12 637); for detecting moderate hearing loss (>35-40 dB), pooled sensitivity was 80% (95% CI, 68%-88%) and pooled specificity was 74% (95% CI, 59%-85%) (6 studies, n = 8774). In 5 studies (n = 2820) on the Hearing Handicap Inventory for the Elderly-Screening to detect moderate hearing loss (>40 dB), pooled sensitivity was 68% (95% CI, 52%-81%) and pooled specificity was 78% (95% CI, 67%-86%). Six trials (n = 853) evaluated amplification vs control in populations with screen-detected or recently detected hearing loss over 6 weeks to 4 months. Five measured hearing-related function via the Hearing Handicap Inventory for the Elderly; only 3 that enrolled veterans (n = 684) found a significant difference considered to represent a minimal important difference (>18.7 points). Few trials reported on other eligible outcomes, and no studies reported on harms of screening or interventions.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

Several screening tests can adequately detect hearing loss in older adults; no studies reported on the harms of screening or treatment. Evidence showing benefit from hearing aids on hearing-related function among adults with screen-detected or newly detected hearing loss is limited to studies enrolling veterans.