Validated mobile applications in otolaryngology head and neck surgery for patient and physicians: A systematic literature review

IMPORTANCE

Mobile apps in the field of ORL-HNS, are widely used by patients and physicians, but neither necessarily developed in collaboration with healthcare professionals nor subjected to regulations by the United States Food and Drug Administration guidelines, with a resultant potential of risk for its users.

OBJECTIVE

To provide the ORL-HNS physician with an updated list of scientific peer review literature- validated mobile apps for safe use for both the clinician and the patients, for screening, diagnosis, therapy and follow up for various ORL-HNS pathologies.

EVIDENCE REVIEW

A comprehensive systematic review of the scientific literature was conducted in "PubMed," "EMBASE," and "Web of Science" without limitation of publication date up to January 1st, 2023. The included papers validated mobile apps in the ORL-HNS discipline. Each study was evaluated using the "Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology" (STROBE) tool.

FINDINGS

From the thousands of unregulated ORL-HNS mobile apps available for download and use in the various app stores, only 17 apps were validated for safe use by the clinician and/or patient. Their information is listed.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

The limited number of validated mobile apps highlights the importance to use validated apps in clinical practice, to improve evidence-based medicine and patient safety. Physician are encouraged to use and recommend their patients to use validated mobile apps only, like any other tool in clinical practice in the evidence-based era.

A Multicenter Validity Study of Four Smartphone Hearing Test Apps in Optimized and Home Environments

OBJECTIVE

Pure tone audiometry (PTA) is the gold standard for hearing assessment. However, it requires access to specialized equipment. Smartphone audiometry applications (apps) have been developed to perform automated threshold audiometry and could allow patients to perform self-administered screening or monitoring. This study aimed to assess the validity and feasibility of patients using apps to self-assess hearing thresholds at home, with comparison to PTA.

METHODS

A multi-center, prospective randomized study was conducted amongst patients undergoing PTA in clinics. Participants were randomly allocated to one of four publicly-available apps designed to measure pure tone thresholds. Participants used an app once in optimal sound-treated conditions and a further three times at home. Ear-specific frequency-specific thresholds and pure tone average were compared using Pearson correlation coefficient. The percentage of app hearing tests with results within ±10 dB of PTA was calculated. Patient acceptability was assessed via an online survey.

RESULTS

One hundred thirty-nine participants submitted data. The results of two at-home automated smartphone apps correlated strongly/very strongly with PTA average and their frequency-specific median was within ±10 dB accuracy. Smartphone audiometry performed in sound-treated and home conditions were very strongly correlated. The apps were rated as easy/very easy to use by 90% of participants and 90% would be happy/very happy to use an app to monitor their hearing.

CONCLUSION

Judicious use of self-performed smartphone audiometry was both valid and feasible for two of four apps. It could provide frequency-specific threshold estimates at home, potentially allowing assessments of patients remotely or monitoring of fluctuating hearing loss.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

2 Laryngoscope, 134:2864-2870, 2024.

Mobile audiometry for hearing threshold assessment: A systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVES

Technological advancements in mobile audiometry (MA) have enabled hearing assessment using tablets and smartphones. This systematic review (PROSPERO ID: CRD42021274761) aimed to identify MA options available to health providers, assess their accuracy in measuring hearing thresholds, and explore factors that might influence their accuracy.

DESIGN AND SETTING

A systematic search of online databases including PubMed, Embase, Cochrane, Evidence Search and Dynamed was conducted on 13th December 2021, and repeated on 30th October 2022, using appropriate Medical Subject Headings (MeSH) terms. Eligible studies reported the use of MA to determine hearing thresholds and compared results to conventional pure-tone audiometry (CA). Studies investigating MA for hearing screening (i.e. reporting just pass/fail) were ineligible for inclusion. Two authors independently reviewed studies, extracted data, and assessed methodological quality and risk of bias using the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies-2 (QUADAS-2) tool.

PARTICIPANTS

Adults and children, with and without diagnosis of hearing impairment.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

A meta-analysis was performed to obtain the mean difference between thresholds measured using MA and CA in dB HL.

RESULTS

Searches returned 858 articles. After systematic review, 17 articles including 1032 participants were analysed. The most used software application was ShoeboxTM (6/17) followed by Hearing TestTM (3/17), then HearTestTM (2/17). Tablet computers were used in ten studies, smartphones in six, and a computer in one. The mean difference between MA and CA thresholds was 1.36 dB (95% CI, 0.07-2.66, p = 0.04). Significant differences between mobile audiometry (MA) and conventional audiometry (CA) thresholds were observed in thresholds measured at 500Hz, in children, when MA was conducted in a sound booth, and when MA was self-administered. However, these differences did not exceed the clinically significant threshold of 10 decibels (dB). Included studies exhibited high levels of heterogeneity, high risk of bias and low concerns about applicability.

CONCLUSIONS

MA compares favourably to CA in measuring hearing thresholds and has role in providing access to hearing assessment in situations where CA is not available or feasible. Future studies should prioritize the integration of pure-tone threshold assessment with additional tests, such as Speech Recognition and Digits-in-Noise, for a more rounded evaluation of hearing ability, assesses acceptability and feasibility, and the cost-effectiveness of MA in non-specialist settings.

ISOM 2023 research Panel 4 - Diagnostics and microbiology of otitis media

OBJECTIVES

To identify and review key research advances from the literature published between 2019 and 2023 on the diagnosis and microbiology of otitis media (OM) including acute otitis media (AOM), recurrent AOM (rAOM), otitis media with effusion (OME), chronic suppurative otitis media (CSOM) and AOM complications (mastoiditis).

DATA SOURCES

PubMed database of the National Library of Medicine.

REVIEW METHODS

All relevant original articles published in Medline in English between July 2019 and February 2023 were identified. Studies that were reviews, case studies, relating to OM complications (other than mastoiditis), and studies focusing on guideline adherence, and consensus statements were excluded. Members of the panel drafted the report based on these search results.

MAIN FINDINGS

For the diagnosis section, 2294 unique records screened, 55 were eligible for inclusion. For the microbiology section 705 unique records were screened and 137 articles were eligible for inclusion. The main themes that arose in OM diagnosis were the need to incorporate multiple modalities including video-otoscopy, tympanometry, telemedicine and artificial intelligence for accurate diagnoses in all diagnostic settings. Further to this, was the use of new, cheap, readily available tools which may improve access in rural and lowmiddle income (LMIC) settings. For OM aetiology, PCR remains the most sensitive method for detecting middle ear pathogens with microbiome analysis still largely restricted to research use. The global pandemic response reduced rates of OM in children, but post-pandemic shifts should be monitored.

IMPLICATION FOR PRACTICE AND FUTURE RESEARCH

Cheap, easy to use multi-technique assessments combined with artificial intelligence and/or telemedicine should be integrated into future practice to improve diagnosis and treatment pathways in OM diagnosis. Longitudinal studies investigating the in-vivo process of OM development, timings and in-depth interactions between the triad of bacteria, viruses and the host immune response are still required. Standardized methods of collection and analysis for microbiome studies to enable inter-study comparisons are required. There is a need to target underlying biofilms if going to effectively prevent rAOM and OME and possibly enhance ventilation tube retention.

Accuracy of smartphone-based hearing screening tests: a systematic review

PURPOSE

To verify the accuracy of smartphone apps to identify hearing loss.

RESEARCH STRATEGIES

A systematic review followed the PRISMA-DATA checklist. The search strategies were applied across four databases (Lilacs, PubMed, Scopus and Web of Science) and grey literature (Google Scholar, OpenGrey, and ProQuest Dissertations and Thesis).

SELECTION CRITERIA

The acronym PIRD was used in review. This included populations of any gender and all age groups. The Index test is the smartphone-based hearing screening test; the Reference test is the pure-tone audiometry, which is considered the gold reference for hearing diagnostics; the diagnosis was performed via validity data (sensitivity and specificity) to identify hearing loss and diagnostic studies.

DATA ANALYSIS

Two reviewers selected the studies in a two-step process. The risk of bias was assessed according to the criteria of the QUADAS-2.

RESULTS

Of 1395 articles, 104 articles were eligible for full-text reading and 17 were included. Only four met all criteria for methodological quality. All of the included studies were published in English between 2015 and 2020. The applications Digits-in noise Test (5 articles), uHear (4 articles), HearScreen (2 articles), hearTest (2 articles) and Hearing Test (2 articles) were the most studied. All this application showed sensitivity and specificity values between 75 and 100%. The other applications were EarScale, uHearing Test, Free field hearing (FFH) and Free Hearing Test.

CONCLUSION

uHear, Digit-in-Noise Test, HearTest and HearScreen have shown significant values of sensitivity and specificity and can be considered as the most accurate methods for screening of hearing impairment.

Diagnostic Accuracy of Smartphone-Based Audiometry for Hearing Loss Detection: Meta-analysis

Background

Hearing loss is one of the most common disabilities worldwide and affects both individual and public health. Pure tone audiometry (PTA) is the gold standard for hearing assessment, but it is often not available in many settings, given its high cost and demand for human resources. Smartphone-based audiometry may be equally effective and can improve access to adequate hearing evaluations.

Objective

The aim of this systematic review is to synthesize the current evidence of the role of smartphone-based audiometry in hearing assessments and further explore the factors that influence its diagnostic accuracy.

Methods

Five databases—PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, and Scopus—were queried to identify original studies that examined the diagnostic accuracy of hearing loss measurement using smartphone-based devices with conventional PTA as a reference test. A bivariate random-effects meta-analysis was performed to estimate the pooled sensitivity and specificity. The factors associated with diagnostic accuracy were identified using a bivariate meta-regression model. Study quality was assessed using the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies-2 tool.

Results

In all, 25 studies with a total of 4470 patients were included in the meta-analysis. The overall sensitivity, specificity, and area under the receiver operating characteristic curve for smartphone-based audiometry were 89% (95% CI 83%-93%), 93% (95% CI 87%-97%), and 0.96 (95% CI 0.93-0.97), respectively; the corresponding values for the smartphone-based speech recognition test were 91% (95% CI 86%-94%), 88% (95% CI 75%-94%), and 0.93 (95% CI 0.90-0.95), respectively. Meta-regression analysis revealed that patient age, equipment used, and the presence of soundproof booths were significantly related to diagnostic accuracy.

Conclusions

We have presented comprehensive evidence regarding the effectiveness of smartphone-based tests in diagnosing hearing loss. Smartphone-based audiometry may serve as an accurate and accessible approach to hearing evaluations, especially in settings where conventional PTA is unavailable.

Neutrophil-lymphocyte and platelet-lymphocyte ratios in otitis media with effusion in children: Diagnostic role and audiologic correlations

AIM

To investigate the relationship between hearing loss and complete blood count parameters including neutrophil, lymphocyte, platelet (PLT), mean platelet volume (MPV), neutrophil-lymphocyte ratio (NLR) and platelet-lymphocyte ratio (PLR) in children with otitis media with effusion (OME).

MATERIALS-METHOD

The study group was formed by 244 paediatric patients who underwent ventilation tube placement because of OME, and was split into two groups as serous and mucoid. The control group included 112 individuals who have no hearing problems. Hearing levels were determined with pure tone audiometry in the study group, preoperatively, and control group. The blood parameters were compared between the serous, mucoid and control groups. The correlation analysis was performed between the blood parameters and hearing levels in the study group. The blood parameters were compared between the groups identified by hearing loss classification.

FINDINGS

There were significant negative correlations between hearing levels and each of NLR, PLR and MPV. There were significant positive correlations between hearing levels and each of the lymphocyte and PLT. According to the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves, serous OME can be estimated with 68% sensitivity and 61% specificity by the NLR value more than 1.1, and 77% sensitivity and 77% specificity by the PLR value more than 102.4. The ROC curve revealed that slight hearing loss could be estimated with 70% sensitivity and 73% specificity by the NLR value more than 1.31, and 78% sensitivity and 77% specificity by the PLR value more than 102.4.

CONCLUSION

The present study revealed that NLR and PLR values were valuable parameters in the diagnosis of serous OME and predicting a hearing loss. These parameters may provide additional information to the audiogram that could influence the therapeutic decision.