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

A Comparison of Hearing Thresholds, and the Resulting Prescribed Gain and Hearing Aid Outputs, Using Gold Standard Audiometry and the TympaHealth Hearing Assessment Tool

OBJECTIVE

Phone- and tablet-based hearing testing systems are now widely available. Here, we evaluated one such system from TympaHealth by comparing air conduction thresholds and resultant hearing aid targets and output, measured with the TympaHealth system with those measured using standard audiometry.

DESIGN

The hearing thresholds of 35 adults were measured using standard audiometry and the TympaHealth system. Each set of thresholds was used to generate NAL-NL2 targets and program a hearing aid. The data from each system were compared.

RESULTS

Bland-Altman analyses showed overall mean differences between thresholds measured with each system to be small, with 85% of TympaHealth thresholds being within ±5 dB of the standard audiometric thresholds, although TympaHealth thresholds were higher (poorer) than the standard audiometric thresholds. The hearing aid targets and gains generated from the standard audiometric thresholds were lower (less amplification) than those generated from the TympaHealth thresholds but again, mean differences at each frequency were small and likely imperceptible.

CONCLUSION

These findings support the possibility that valid hearing testing can take place outside of a clinical booth using portable systems like that from TympaHealth, opening up the possibility of testing hearing and fitting hearing aids through pharmacies, opticians, and in care homes.

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.

Clinical Practice Guideline: Age-Related Hearing Loss

OBJECTIVE

Age-related hearing loss (ARHL) is a prevalent but often underdiagnosed and undertreated condition among individuals aged 50 and above. It is associated with various sociodemographic factors and health risks including dementia, depression, cardiovascular disease, and falls. While the causes of ARHL and its downstream effects are well defined, there is a lack of priority placed by clinicians as well as guidance regarding the identification, education, and management of this condition.

PURPOSE

The purpose of this clinical practice guideline is to identify quality improvement opportunities and provide clinicians trustworthy, evidence-based recommendations regarding the identification and management of ARHL. These opportunities are communicated through clear actionable statements with explanation of the support in the literature, evaluation of the quality of the evidence, and recommendations on implementation. The target patients for the guideline are any individuals aged 50 years and older. The target audience is all clinicians in all care settings. This guideline is intended to focus on evidence-based quality improvement opportunities judged most important by the guideline development group (GDG). It is not intended to be a comprehensive, general guide regarding the management of ARHL. The statements in this guideline are not intended to limit or restrict care provided by clinicians based on their experience and assessment of individual patients.

ACTION STATEMENTS

The GDG made strong recommendations for the following key action statements (KASs): (KAS 4) If screening suggests hearing loss, clinicians should obtain or refer to a clinician who can obtain an audiogram. (KAS 8) Clinicians should offer, or refer to a clinician who can offer, appropriately fit amplification to patients with ARHL. (KAS 9) Clinicians should refer patients for an evaluation of cochlear implantation candidacy when patients have appropriately fit amplification and persistent hearing difficulty with poor speech understanding. The GDG made recommendations for the following KASs: (KAS 1) Clinicians should screen patients aged 50 years and older for hearing loss at the time of a health care encounter. (KAS 2) If screening suggests hearing loss, clinicians should examine the ear canal and tympanic membrane with otoscopy or refer to a clinician who can examine the ears for cerumen impaction, infection, or other abnormalities. (KAS 3) If screening suggests hearing loss, clinicians should identify sociodemographic factors and patient preferences that influence access to and utilization of hearing health care. (KAS 5) Clinicians should evaluate and treat or refer to a clinician who can evaluate and treat patients with significant asymmetric hearing loss, conductive or mixed hearing loss, or poor word recognition on diagnostic testing. (KAS 6) Clinicians should educate and counsel patients with hearing loss and their family/care partner(s) about the impact of hearing loss on their communication, safety, function, cognition, and quality of life (QOL). (KAS 7) Clinicians should counsel patients with hearing loss on communication strategies and assistive listening devices. (KAS 10) For patients with hearing loss, clinicians should assess if communication goals have been met and if there has been improvement in hearing-related QOL at a subsequent health care encounter or within 1 year. The GDG offered the following KAS as an option: (KAS 11) Clinicians should assess hearing at least every 3 years in patients with known hearing loss or with reported concern for changes in hearing.

Plain Language Summary: Age-Related Hearing Loss

The plain language summary explains age-related hearing loss to patients, families, and care partners. The summary is for any patient aged 50 years and older, families, and care partners. It is based on the 2024 "Clinical Practice Guideline: Age-Related Hearing Loss." This plain language summary is a companion publication to the full guideline, which provides greater detail for clinicians. Guidelines and their recommendations may not apply to every patient, but they can be used to find best practices and quality improvement opportunities.

The Hearing Test App for Android Devices: Distinctive Features of Pure-Tone Audiometry Performed on Mobile Devices

The popularity of mobile devices, combined with advances in electronic design and internet technology, has enabled home-based hearing tests in recent years. The purpose of this article is to highlight the distinctive aspects of pure-tone audiometry performed on a mobile device by means of the Hearing Test app for Android devices. The first version of this app was released a decade ago, and since then the app has been systematically improved, which required addressing many issues common to the majority of mobile apps for hearing testing. The article discusses techniques for mobile device calibration, outlines the testing procedure and how it differs from traditional pure-tone audiometry, explores the potential for bone conduction testing, and provides considerations for interpreting mobile audiometry including test duration and background noise. The article concludes by detailing clinically relevant aspects requiring special attention during testing and interpretation of results which are of substantial value to the hundreds of thousands of active users of the Hearing Test app worldwide, as well as to users of other hearing test apps.

Assessing the accuracy and reliability of application-based audiometry for hearing evaluation

Pure-tone audiometry (PTA) is the gold standard for assessing hearing loss. However, traditional PTA tests require specialized equipment, trained personnel, and a soundproof environment. Recently, smartphone-based PTA tests have been developed as an alternative method for hearing assessment. The aim of this study was to validate the accuracy and reliability of a smartphone application-based audiometry test. This study was conducted to assess the performance of application-based audiometry from November 2021 to January 2022. Pure-tone thresholds were measured using a smartphone application-based PTA test and compared with results obtained using a traditional audiometer in a sound-treated booth. The smartphone application used in this study was the "Care4Ear (Care4ear, version 1.0.6, MIJ Co., Ltd.)". Hearing thresholds less than 35 dB HL were classified as group A, 35-64 dB HL as group B, and 65 dB HL or greater as group C for the classification of hearing levels. We evaluated the accuracy of smartphone audiometry for each group and compared the results of frequency-specific hearing tests. Additionally, we examined the results of smartphone audiometry in individuals (n = 27) with asymmetric hearing loss. Seventy subjects completed both conventional audiometry and smartphone application-based hearing tests. Among the ears assessed, 55.7% were classified as group A, while 25.7% and 18.6% were classified as group B and group C, respectively. The average hearing threshold obtained from conventional pure-tone audiometry was 37.7 ± 25.2 dB HL, whereas the application-based hearing test yielded thresholds of 21.0 ± 23.0 dB HL. A significant correlation (r = 0.69, p < 0.01) was found between the average hearing thresholds obtained from the application-based and conventional pure-tone audiometry tests. The application-based test achieved a 97.4% hit rate for classifying hearing thresholds as class A, but lower rates of 22.2% for class B and 38.5% for class C. Notably, a discrepancy was observed between the hearing threshold measured by the application and the conventional audiometry for the worse ear with asymmetric hearing. The smartphone-based audiometry is a feasible method for hearing evaluation especially in persons with normal hearing. In cases of hearing loss or asymmetric hearing loss, the results of the application-based audiometry may be inaccurate, limiting its diagnostic utility.

Virtual clinic for hearing loss and non-pulsatile tinnitus: initial experience of 210 cases

OBJECTIVE

Patients with hearing loss and tinnitus face lengthy waits to be seen in the ENT clinic. SHOEBOX Audiometry is an iPad-based, audiometric screening tool. A virtual hearing loss and non-pulsatile tinnitus clinic involving an ENT specialist virtually assessing cases based on the SHOEBOX audiogram, a patient symptom questionnaire and the primary care referral letter were implemented. This service evaluation explored the outcomes of the virtual clinic in reducing the need for a face-to-face ENT appointment.

METHOD

This was a retrospective service evaluation of the first six months of the virtual hearing loss and non-pulsatile tinnitus clinic.

RESULTS

A total of 210 patients were included: 34.8 per cent (73) were discharged without requiring audiologist assessment or an ENT appointment, 51.9 per cent (109) required formal audiological assessment, 36.7 per cent (77) required imaging and only 13.8 per cent (29) required a face-to-face ENT appointment.

CONCLUSION

A virtual hearing loss and non-pulsatile tinnitus clinic minimised the number of patients requiring a traditional face-to-face clinic appointment within ENT.

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.

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.

Web- and app-based tools for remote hearing assessment: a scoping review

OBJECTIVE

Remote hearing screening and assessment may improve access to, and uptake of, hearing care. This review, the most comprehensive to date, aimed to (i) identify and assess functionality of remote hearing assessment tools on smartphones and online platforms, (ii) determine if assessed tools were also evaluated in peer-reviewed publications and (iii) report accuracy of existing validation data.

DESIGN

Protocol was registered in INPLASY and reported according to PRISMA-Extension for Scoping Reviews.

STUDY SAMPLE

In total, 187 remote hearing assessment tools (using tones, speech, self-report or a combination) and 101 validation studies met the inclusion criteria. Quality, functionality, bias and applicability of each app were assessed by at least two authors.

RESULTS

Assessed tools showed considerable variability in functionality. Twenty-two (12%) tools were peer-reviewed and 14 had acceptable functionality. The validation results and their quality varied greatly, largely depending on the category of the tool.

CONCLUSION

The accuracy and reliability of most tools are unknown. Tone-producing tools provide approximate hearing thresholds but have calibration and background noise issues. Speech and self-report tools are less affected by these issues but mostly do not provide an estimated pure tone audiogram. Predicting audiograms using filtered language-independent materials could be a universal solution.

Self-assessment of bone conduction hearing threshold using mobile audiometry: comparison with pure tone audiometry

OBJECTIVE

The aim of the research was to evaluate the feasibility of measuring the bone conduction hearing threshold using self-administered mobile audiometry.

DESIGN

A single-centre, closed, cross-over trial was carried out on patients from the ENT Department. A mobile-based, self-administered, audiologist-assisted assessment of the bone conduction hearing threshold was carried out by means of the open-access, freeware app Hearing Test using two types of bone conduction headphones: professional B71 bone transducer and commercially available AfterShokz Openmove open-ear headphones.

STUDY SAMPLE

Seventy-seven ears.

RESULTS

A test-retest examination revealed the lowest standard deviation for open-ear headphones at 3.33 dB (95% CI 2.92-3.79). When compared with pure tone audiometry, the intraclass correlations of 0.95 (95% CI 0.94-0.96) and 0.90 (95% CI 0.88-0.92) were obtained for the bone transducer and for the open-ear headphones, indicating excellent and good reliability, respectively. However, the regression slope of 0.67 was found for the air-bone gap when using open ear headphones, which was significantly different from 1 (p < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Open-ear headphones provide an alternative for estimating bone conduction once the air-bone gap has been adjusted by a factor of 1/0.6 7 ≅1.5. They demonstrate improved reproducibility over the bone transducer and are much easier to use with a mobile device. Trial Registration: Wroclaw Medical University, Science Support Centre, BW60/2020.

Long-term Follow-up of Patients With Hernia Using the Hernia-Specific Quality-of-Life Mobile App: Feasibility Questionnaire Study

BACKGROUND

Hernia repair is one of the most common surgical procedures; however, the long-term outcomes are seldom reported due to incomplete follow-up.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to examine the use of a mobile app for the long-term follow-up of hernia recurrence, complication, and quality-of-life perception.

METHODS

A cloud-based corroborative system drove a mobile app with the HERQL (Hernia-Specific Quality-of-Life) questionnaire built in. Patients who underwent hernia repair were identified from medical records, and an invitation to participate in this study was sent through the post.

RESULTS

The response rate was 11.89% (311/2615) during the 1-year study period, whereas the recurrence rate was 1.0% (3/311). Causal relationships between symptomatic and functional domains of the HERQL questionnaire were indicated by satisfactory model fit indices and significant regression coefficients derived from structural equational modeling. Regarding patients' last hernia surgeries, 88.7% (276/311) of the patients reported them to be satisfactory or very satisfactory, 68.5% (213/311) of patients reported no discomfort, and 61.1% (190/311) of patients never experienced mesh foreign body sensation. Subgroup analysis for the most commonly used mesh repairs found that mesh plug repair inevitably resulted in worse symptoms and quality-of-life perception from the group with groin hernias.

CONCLUSIONS

The mobile app has the potential to enhance the quality of care for patients with hernia and facilitate outcomes research with more complete follow-up.

Smartphone-Enabled versus Conventional Otoscopy in Detecting Middle Ear Disease: A Meta-Analysis

Traditional otoscopy has some limitations, including poor visualization and inadequate time for evaluation in suboptimal environments. Smartphone-enabled otoscopy may improve examination quality and serve as a potential diagnostic tool for middle ear diseases using a telemedicine approach. The main objectives are to compare the correctness of smartphone-enabled otoscopy and traditional otoscopy and to evaluate the diagnostic confidence of the examiner via meta-analysis. From inception through 20 January 2022, the Cochrane Library, PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science, and Scopus databases were searched. Studies comparing smartphone-enabled otoscopy with traditional otoscopy regarding the outcome of interest were eligible. The relative risk (RR) for the rate of correctness in diagnosing ear conditions and the standardized mean difference (SMD) in diagnostic confidence were extracted. Sensitivity analysis and trial sequential analyses (TSAs) were conducted to further examine the pooled results. Study quality was evaluated by using the revised Cochrane risk of bias tool 2. Consequently, a total of 1840 examinees were divided into the smartphone-enabled otoscopy group and the traditional otoscopy group. Overall, the pooled result showed that smartphone-enabled otoscopy was associated with higher correctness than traditional otoscopy (RR, 1.26; 95% CI, 1.06 to 1.51; p = 0.01; I² = 70.0%). Consistently significant associations were also observed in the analysis after excluding the simulation study (RR, 1.10; 95% CI, 1.00 to 1.21; p = 0.04; I² = 0%) and normal ear conditions (RR, 1.18; 95% CI, 1.01 to 1.40; p = 0.04; I² = 65.0%). For the confidence of examiners using both otoscopy methods, the pooled result was nonsignificant between the smartphone-enabled otoscopy and traditional otoscopy groups (SMD, 0.08; 95% CI, -0.24 to 0.40; p = 0.61; I² = 16.3%). In conclusion, smartphone-enabled otoscopy was associated with a higher rate of correctness in the detection of middle ear diseases, and in patients with otologic complaints, the use of smartphone-enabled otoscopy may be considered. More large-scale studies should be performed to consolidate the results.

Tele-Audiology: Current State and Future Directions

The importance of tele-audiology has been heightened by the current COVID-19 pandemic. The present article reviews the current state of tele-audiology practice while presenting its limitations and opportunities. Specifically, this review addresses: (1) barriers to hearing healthcare, (2) tele-audiology services, and (3) tele-audiology key issues, challenges, and future directions. Accumulating evidence suggests that tele-audiology is a viable service delivery model, as remote hearing screening, diagnostic testing, intervention, and rehabilitation can each be completed reliably and effectively. The benefits of tele-audiology include improved access to care, increased follow-up rates, and reduced travel time and costs. Still, significant logistical and technical challenges remain from ensuring a secure and robust internet connection to controlling ambient noise and meeting all state and federal licensure and reimbursement regulations. Future research and development, especially advancements in artificial intelligence, will continue to increase tele-audiology acceptance, expand remote care, and ultimately improve patient satisfaction.