The Accuracy of IOS Device-based uHear as a Screening Tool for Hearing Loss: A Preliminary Study From the Middle East

Evaluating the accuracy of a self-administered smartphone hearing test application in a geriatric population

BACKGROUND

As the global population ages, hearing loss becomes increasingly prevalent, and is associated with neurocognitive and psychiatric comorbidities, impacting quality of life. Early screening and timely intervention might prevent or delay cognitive decline, a gap in care that can potentially be addressed by self-administered smartphone hearing tests.

OBJECTIVE

This study aims to evaluate the accuracy of Mimi™ (Berlin, Germany), a commercially available self-administered smartphone hearing test compared to pure tone audiogram (PTA) in terms of both hearing levels and hearing thresholds in our local geriatric population > 65 years-old.

METHOD

Fifty-two participants above 65 years of age requiring conventional audiograms were recruited from a National Referral University Hospital Otolaryngology clinic from March to June 2022. All participants were administered the conventional PTA tests in a sound-proof booth conducted by audiology technicians followed by Mimi™ Hearing Test in a quiet clinic room. Comparisons between the hearing levels of both tests were analyzed using Spearman's rank correlation coefficient, Bland-Altman plots and Gwet's Kappa which looked at concordance. Hearing thresholds were then analysed using the Wilcoxon signed rank (SR) test.

RESULTS

Mimi™ showed strong to very strong correlation with good agreement compared to readings obtained from formal PTA. Concordance in determining hearing loss also showed substantial to almost perfect agreement at each individual frequency, with values of kappa falling between 0.735-0.857. In terms of thresholds, there were no significant differences in thresholds given by both tests except for 2.0 kHz, HFPTA and 4FPTA (p < 0.05).

CONCLUSION

Mimi™ serves as a good screening tool for detection of moderate hearing loss for early pickup and treatment except at higher frequencies. The smartphone hearing test is also less accurate in determining the extent of hearing loss and formal PTA after hearing loss is detected on screening should still be standard of care.

Tuberculosis impacts multiple aspects in quality of life in a Romanian cohort of drug-susceptible and drug resistant patients: A patient-reported outcome measures study

BACKGROUND

Tuberculosis (TB), and especially its drug resistant forms, is responsible for not only significant mortality, but also considerable morbidity, still under-quantified. This study used four Patient-Reported Outcome Measures (PROMS) to assess the status of persons affected by drug-susceptible and drug-resistant TB during their TB treatment or after treatment completion, in Romania, the highest TB burden country in the EU.

METHODS

People affected by TB in two different regions in Romania were included during and after treatment, following a cross-sectional design. PROMs used were SF-36, EQ-5D-5L, WPAI and the app-based audiometry screening tool 'uHear.' Descriptive statistics and relevant statistical tests were used to compare groups between themselves and with the general Romanian population.

RESULTS

Both patients with drug-susceptible and drug-resistant TB experience, with drug-resistant patients experiencing statistically significantly more pain and hearing loss. PROMs show some improvement in the after-treatment group; however, compared with the general Romanian population for which data were available, all groups scored lower on all outcome measures.

CONCLUSION

PROMs offer the possibility of obtaining a more comprehensive view of patients' status, by involving them directly in the medical process and could guide a rehabilitation strategy.

The use of tele-audiology in ototoxicity monitoring: A scoping review

INTRODUCTION

Due to the growing burden of disease in South Africa, encompassing conditions such as tuberculosis, human immunodeficiency virus, and cancer, the holistic management of affected patients incorporating ototoxicity monitoring is a necessity. However, ototoxicity monitoring in developing countries may be limited due to a lack of resources and inadequate healthcare facilities. Subsequently, the use of tele-audiology may be a revolutionary technique with the potential to provide audiology services to under-served populations with limited access.

METHODS

The study aimed to describe the use of tele-audiology services in ototoxicity monitoring through a scoping review of English peer-reviewed articles from June 2009 to June 2020. Seventeen articles were purposively selected from the following databases: PubMed, Science Direct, Taylor and Francis Online, WorldCat, and Google Scholar. Data was extracted as per the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses diagram and results were analyzed using deductive thematic analysis.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

While a minority of the studies indicated that the cost of implementation and network connectivity within a South African context pose as barriers, most researchers reported that tele-audiology provides a reliable, time-efficient, cost-effective, and easily accessible alternative for ototoxicity monitoring. Hardware including the WAHTS, KUDUwave, and OtoID, along with software such as the TabSINT, Otocalc, uHear, and the hearTest, have proven to be useful for ototoxicity monitoring. A need for further investigations regarding the feasibility of tele-audiology implementation in South Africa is evident. Despite this, it provides audiologists with an opportunity to offer contact-less services during COVID-19, thus, confirming its versatility as an augmentative method for ototoxicity monitoring.

Accuracy and Pitfalls in the Smartphone-Based Audiometry Examination

Introduction

Approximately 466 million people suffer from hearing loss worldwide, with Indonesia ranking fourth in Southeast Asia. However, conventional pure-tone audiometry is not yet available in many areas because of its high cost. Numerous available smartphone-based audiometry applications are potential alternative screening tools for hearing loss, especially in Indonesia. This study examined the findings on the validation of smartphone-based audiometry applications to assess hearing functions available in Indonesia.

Materials and Methods

Based on the established eligibility criteria, this study was conducted by browsing the relevant literature validating smartphone-based audiometry applications in Indonesia. Relevant study data, such as the author, year, location, implementation procedures, and outcomes, were extracted and summarized.

Results

This systematic review found 17 relevant and eligible publications. Of the six applications tested, 5 were found to have good validity, such as uHearTM, Audiogram MobileTM, AudCalTM, Hearing TestTM e-audiologia, and WuliraTM. All smartphone-based audiometry was tested only for the air conduction threshold and was influenced by several factors.

Conclusion

Because smartphone-based audiometry is inexpensive, simple, and more accessible than conventional audiometric testing, it can be useful as a screening modality or alternative approach to assess hearing function. Unfortunately, smartphone-based audiometry cannot replace conventional audiometry in diagnosing hearing impairment.

A study on the IOS application "uHear" as a screening tool for hearing loss in Bangkok

Objective

This study was designed to compare the results of hearing tests performed using the uHear application with those of standard audiometry in Thai people in Bangkok.

Methods

From December 2018 to November 2019, a prospective observational study was conducted involving Thai participants aged between 18 and 80 years. All participants were tested using standard audiometry and the uHear application in a soundproof booth and in a typical hearing environment.

Results

This study included 52 participants (12 males and 40 females). The Bland-Altman plot with the Minimal Clinical Meaningful Difference of 10 dB between standard audiometry and the uHear in a soundproof booth found agreement at 2000 Hz. The uHear in a soundproof booth showed high sensitivity at all frequencies (82.5%-98.9%) and high specificity at 500 and 1000 Hz (85.7%-100%). uHear in a typical hearing environment showed high sensitivity at 4000 and 6000 Hz (97.6%) and high specificity at 500 and 1000 Hz (100%). When considering the pure-tone average, uHear in a soundproof booth showed high sensitivity (94.7%) and specificity (90.7%), whereas, in a typical hearing environment, uHear showed poor sensitivity (34%) and high specificity (100%).

Conclusion

uHear was accurate for hearing loss screening at 2000 Hz in a soundproof booth. However, uHear in a typical hearing environment lacked accuracy. The uHear application in a soundproof booth can be used to screen hearing loss in some situations where standard audiometry is impossible.

Level of Evidence

II.

Hearing screening using the uHear™ smartphone-based app: reproducibility of results from two response modes

PURPOSE

Estimate the reproducibility of hearing screening results using the uHear™ smartphone-based app in two response modes: self-test response and test-operator.

METHODS

Reliability study conducted with 65 individuals aged ≥18 years assisted at the Speech-language and Hearing Therapy clinic of a public higher-education institution. Hearing screening was conducted by a single researcher using the uHear app and earbud headphones in a soundproof booth. Participants responded to sound stimuli in both self-test response mode and test-operator mode. The order in which these two uHear test modes were applied was altered according to the entrance of each participant in the study. The correspondence between the hearing thresholds obtained from each response mode was analyzed and their Intraclass Correlation Coefficient (ICC) was estimated.

RESULTS

A correspondence of ±5 dBHL >75% was observed between these hearing thresholds. The ICC values showed excellent agreement between the two response modes at all frequencies >40 dBHL tested.

CONCLUSION

The two hearing screening response modes using the uHear app presented high reproducibility, suggesting that the test-operator mode is a viable alternative when the self-test response mode is not recommended.

Virtual audiometric testing using smartphone mobile applications to detect hearing loss

Objective

The COVID-19 pandemic drove the need for remote audiometric testing in the form of mobile applications for hearing assessment. This study sought to determine the accuracy of two smartphone-based hearing assessment applications, Mimi and uHear, against the gold standard of in-clinic audiometric testing.

Methods

One hundred patients that presented to clinic for hearing assessment were randomly assigned to take either the Mimi or uHear hearing test alongside standard audiometric testing. Hearing thresholds measured using mobile applications were compared to those from audiometric testing to assess validity. Patient satisfaction was measured using a questionnaire that queried if the app met the user's need, if they would recommend the app to others, and how likely they were to use the app again.

Results

Using Mimi, there were no differences in average hearing levels measured at any frequency when compared to standard audiometric testing. uHear overestimated hearing loss at 500 and 1000 Hz (p < .001 for both) by 5-10 Hz, and underestimated hearing loss at 6000 Hz (p < .001) by 5-10 Hz compared to standard audiometric testing. When stratified by level of hearing impairment, uHear overestimated impairment in those with normal hearing (p < .001). Mimi had higher sensitivity (0.971) and specificity (0.912) for hearing loss (defined as a pure tone average for 500, 1000, 2000, and 4000 Hz greater than 25 dB) than uHear (0.914 and 0.780, respectively). However, uHear outranked Mimi on all three questions in the satisfaction questionnaire (p = .01, p = .03, and p = .02, respectively).

Conclusion

Mimi appears to be a reasonable substitute for standard audiometric testing when individuals cannot present to clinic for gold standard testing; however, the Mimi user experience can be improved.

Level of evidence

Level II.

Telehealth solutions for assessing auditory outcomes related to noise and ototoxic exposures in clinic and research

Nearly 1.5 billion people globally have some decline in hearing ability throughout their lifetime. Many causes for hearing loss are preventable, such as that from exposure to noise and chemicals. According to the World Health Organization, nearly 50% of individuals 12-25 years old are at risk of hearing loss due to recreational noise exposure. In the occupational setting, an estimated 16% of disabling hearing loss is related to occupational noise exposure, highest in developing countries. Ototoxicity is another cause of acquired hearing loss. Audiologic assessment is essential for monitoring hearing health and for the diagnosis and management of hearing loss and related disorders (e.g., tinnitus). However, 44% of the world's population is considered rural and, consequently, lacks access to quality hearing healthcare. Therefore, serving individuals living in rural and under-resourced areas requires creative solutions. Conducting hearing assessments via telehealth is one such solution. Telehealth can be used in a variety of contexts, including noise and ototoxic exposure monitoring, field testing in rural and low-resource settings, and evaluating auditory outcomes in large-scale clinical trials. This overview summarizes current telehealth applications and practices for the audiometric assessment, identification, and monitoring of hearing loss.

Digital Technology for Remote Hearing Assessment—Current Status and Future Directions for Consumers

Globally, more than 1.5 billion people have hearing loss. Unfortunately, most people with hearing loss reside in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) where traditional face-to-face services rendered by trained health professionals are few and unequally dispersed. The COVID-19 pandemic has further hampered the effectiveness of traditional service delivery models to provide hearing care. Digital health technologies are strong enablers of hearing care and can support health delivery models that are more sustainable. The convergence of advancing technology and mobile connectivity is enabling new ways of providing decentralized hearing services. Recently, an abundance of digital applications that offer hearing tests directly to the public has become available. A growing body of evidence has shown the ability of several approaches to provide accurate, accessible, and remote hearing assessment to consumers. Further effort is needed to promote greater accuracy across a variety of test platforms, improve sensitivity to ear disease, and scale up hearing rehabilitation, especially in LMICs.

Smartphone-Based Applications to Detect Hearing Loss: A Review of Current Technology

BACKGROUND/OBJECTIVES

Age-related hearing loss (ARHL) is a widely prevalent yet manageable condition that has been linked to neurocognitive and psychiatric comorbidities. Multiple barriers hinder older individuals from being diagnosed with ARHL through pure-tone audiometry. This is especially true during the COVID-19 pandemic, which has resulted in the closure of many outpatient audiology and otolaryngology offices. Smartphone-based hearing assessment apps may overcome these challenges by enabling patients to remotely self-administer their own hearing examination. The objective of this review is to provide an up-to-date overview of current mobile health applications (apps) that claim to assess hearing.

DESIGN

Narrative review.

MEASUREMENTS

The Apple App Store and Google Play Store were queried for apps that claim to assess hearing. Relevant apps were downloaded and used to conduct a mock hearing assessment. Names of included apps were searched on four literature databases (PubMed/MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, and CINAHL) to determine which apps had been validated against gold standard methods.

RESULTS

App store searches identified 44 unique apps. Apps differed with respect to the type of test offered (e.g., hearing threshold test), cost, strategies to reduce ambient noise, test output (quantitative vs qualitative results), and options to export results. Validation studies were identified for seven apps.

CONCLUSION

Given their low cost and relative accessibility, smartphone-based hearing apps may facilitate screening for ARHL, particularly in the setting of limitations on in-person medical care due to COVID-19. However, app features vary widely, few apps have been validated, and user-centered designs for older adults are largely lacking. Further research and validation efforts are necessary to determine whether smartphone-based hearing assessments are a feasible and accurate screening tool for ARHL. Key Points Age-related hearing loss is a prevalent yet undertreated condition among older adults. Why Does this Paper Matter?     Smartphone-based hearing test apps may facilitate remote screening for hearing loss, but limitations surrounding app validation, usability, equipment calibration, and data security should be addressed.

Validity of hearing screening using hearTest smartphone-based audiometry: performance evaluation of different response modes

Objective: To investigate the validity of hearing screening with hearTest smartphone-based audiometry and to specify test duration addressing the two response modes and hearing loss criteria.Design: A diagnostic accuracy study comparing hearing screening with conventional audiometry.Study sample: Three hundred and forty individuals, aged between 5-92 years.Results: Of the 340 participants, 301 undertook all test procedures (273 adults and 28 children). Sensitivity and specificity were >90% for hearTest hearing screening to identify disabling hearing loss for both response modes with adults and children. We found similar sensitivity in identifying any level of hearing loss for both response modes in children, with specificity >80%, and for the self-test mode in adults. Low specificity was observed when identifying any level of hearing loss in adults using the test-operator mode. In adults, there was a significant difference between test duration for the test-operator and self-test modes.Conclusion: Hearing screening using hearTest smartphone-based audiometry is accurate for the identification of both disabling hearing loss and any level of hearing loss in adults and children in the self-test response mode. The test-operator mode is also an option for children; however, it does not provide good accuracy in identifying mild level of hearing loss in adults.

Accuracy of Smartphone Self-Hearing Test Applications Across Frequencies and Earphone Styles in Adults

PURPOSE

The purpose of this study is to evaluate smartphone-based self-hearing test applications (apps) for accuracy in threshold assessment and validity in screening for hearing loss across frequencies and earphone transducer styles.

METHOD

Twenty-two adult participants (10 = normal hearing; 12 = sensorineural hearing loss; n = 44 ears) underwent conventional audiometry and performed 6 self-administered hearing tests using two iPhone-based apps (App 1 = uHear [Version 2.0.2, Unitron]; App 2 = uHearingTest [Version 1.0.3, WooFu Tech, LLC.]) each with 3 different transducers (earbud earphones, supra-aural headphones, circumaural headphones). Hearing sensitivity results using the smartphone apps across frequencies and transducers were compared with conventional audiometry.

RESULTS

Differences in accuracy were revealed between the hearing test apps across frequencies and earphone styles. The uHear app using the iPhone standard EarPod earbud earphones was accurate to conventional thresholds (p > .002 with Bonferroni correction) at 1000, 2000, 4000, and 6000 Hz and found valid (81%-100% sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive values) for screening mild or greater hearing loss (> 25 dB HL) at 500, 1000, 2000, 4000, and 6000 Hz. The uHearingTest app was accurate in threshold assessment and determined valid for screening mild or greater hearing loss (> 25 dB HL) using supra-aural headphones at 2000, 4000, and 8000 Hz.

CONCLUSIONS

Self-hearing test apps can be accurate in hearing threshold assessment and screening for mild or greater hearing loss (> 25 dB HL) when using appropriate transducers. To ensure accuracy, manufacturers should specify earphone model instructions to users of smartphone-based self-hearing test apps.

A Tablet-Based Mobile Hearing Screening System for Preschoolers: Design and Validation Study

Background

Hearing ability is important for children to develop speech and language skills as they grow. After a mandatory newborn hearing screening, group or mass screening of children at later ages, such as at preschool age, is often practiced. For this practice to be effective and accessible in low-resource countries such as Thailand, innovative enabling tools that make use of pervasive mobile and smartphone technology should be considered.

Objective

This study aims to develop a cost-effective, tablet-based hearing screening system that can perform a rapid minimal speech recognition level test.

Methods

An Android-based screening app was developed. The screening protocol involved asking children to choose pictures corresponding to a set of predefined words heard at various sound levels offered in a specifically designed sequence. For the app, the set of words was validated, and their corresponding speech power levels were calibrated. We recruited 122 children, aged 4-5 years, during the development phase. Another 63 children of the same age were screened for their hearing abilities using the app in version 2. The results in terms of the sensitivity and specificity were compared with those measured using the conventional audiometric equipment.

Results

For screening purposes, the sensitivity of the developed screening system version 2 was 76.67% (95% CI 59.07-88.21), and the specificity was 95.83% (95% CI 89.77-98.37) for screening children with mild hearing loss (pure-tone average threshold at 1, 2, and 4 kHz, >20 dB). The time taken for the screening of each child was 150.52 (SD 19.07) seconds (95% CI 145.71-155.32 seconds). The average time used for conventional play audiometry was 11.79 (SD 3.66) minutes (95% CI 10.85-12.71 minutes).

Conclusions

This study shows the potential use of a tablet-based system for rapid and mobile hearing screening. The system was shown to have good overall sensitivity and specificity. Overall, the idea can be easily adopted for systems based on other languages.

Implementation of Digital Health Technology at Academic Medical Centers in Saudi Arabia

Academic Medical Centers (AMCs) in Saudi Arabia are dedicated to providing high-quality patient care and promoting the health and wellbeing of its citizens. Additionally, they provide medical education and conduct research in a wide range of clinical disciplines. A recent global trend in academic hospitals with mandates similar to those in Saudi Arabia is that they have started utilizing digital health technology in a bid to increase efficiency and improve the quality of patient care. This paper takes the position that such digital health technologies should also be utilized in AMC settings in Saudi Arabia. Electronic health records (EHRs), smartphones, video-imaging technologies, virtual desktop infrastructures, mobile EHR access, and smart-beds can help AMCs serve patients more effectively. Rural people can be connected to consultants at AMCs using these technologies using virtual self-care tools. Validation of new digital health devices can be performed in collaboration with digital health partners and serve to enrich the knowledge of medical students in the area of digital health. This review aims to draw the attention of stakeholders to the need to implement digital health technology in AMCs in Saudi Arabia and help improve the quality of healthcare.

Hearing Tests Based on Biologically Calibrated Mobile Devices: Comparison With Pure-Tone Audiometry

BACKGROUND

Hearing screening tests based on pure-tone audiometry may be conducted on mobile devices, provided that the devices are specially calibrated for the purpose. Calibration consists of determining the reference sound level and can be performed in relation to the hearing threshold of normal-hearing persons. In the case of devices provided by the manufacturer, together with bundled headphones, the reference sound level can be calculated once for all devices of the same model.

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to compare the hearing threshold measured by a mobile device that was calibrated using a model-specific, biologically determined reference sound level with the hearing threshold obtained in pure-tone audiometry.

METHODS

Trial participants were recruited offline using face-to-face prompting from among Otolaryngology Clinic patients, who own Android-based mobile devices with bundled headphones. The hearing threshold was obtained on a mobile device by means of an open access app, Hearing Test, with incorporated model-specific reference sound levels. These reference sound levels were previously determined in uncontrolled conditions in relation to the hearing threshold of normal-hearing persons. An audiologist-assisted self-measurement was conducted by the participants in a sound booth, and it involved determining the lowest audible sound generated by the device within the frequency range of 250 Hz to 8 kHz. The results were compared with pure-tone audiometry.

RESULTS

A total of 70 subjects, 34 men and 36 women, aged 18-71 years (mean 36, standard deviation [SD] 11) participated in the trial. The hearing threshold obtained on mobile devices was significantly different from the one determined by pure-tone audiometry with a mean difference of 2.6 dB (95% CI 2.0-3.1) and SD of 8.3 dB (95% CI 7.9-8.7). The number of differences not greater than 10 dB reached 89% (95% CI 88-91), whereas the mean absolute difference was obtained at 6.5 dB (95% CI 6.2-6.9). Sensitivity and specificity for a mobile-based screening method were calculated at 98% (95% CI 93-100.0) and 79% (95% CI 71-87), respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

The method of hearing self-test carried out on mobile devices with bundled headphones demonstrates high compatibility with pure-tone audiometry, which confirms its potential application in hearing monitoring, screening tests, or epidemiological examinations on a large scale.

Evaluation of the Hearing Test Pro Application as a Screening Tool for Hearing Loss Assessment

Background:

Disabling hearing loss is considered a significant health problem globally with high incidence in developing countries. In Africa, different studies have shown that one in five Africans uses smartphones. This dispositive can be used to screen hearing loss.

Aim:

The study aims to appraise the effectiveness of Hearing Test Pro, an Android-based application, as a screening tool for hearing loss.

Methods:

This is a prospective study developed in the Federal Teaching Hospital, Ido-Ekiti, Ekiti State, Nigeria, between September and December 2018. The study was approved by the institutional ethics committee. Consent of adult android users was conveniently obtained for the study. A regular audiometric test with Amplivox 260 was done after otoscopy (to exclude other ear pathology). The results were compared with the test developed by an android Hearing Test Pro app. A threshold of >40 decibels was used to determine any evidence of hearing loss at the specific frequency of 250–8000 Hz. P < 0.05 was considered statistically significant.

Results:

Three hundred and sixty ears of 180 patients were evaluated, of which 100 were male and 80 were female. The male-to-female ratio was 1.25:1. At lower frequency, a statistical difference between classical pure-tone thresholds recorded with the audiometer and the android phone was documented. However, this difference was not noted at higher frequencies.

Conclusion:

The Hearing Test Pro app effectively distinguishes between high-frequency hearing loss and thus can be useful as part of the hearing loss screening programs.