Diagnostic Accuracy of Smartphone-Based Audiometry for Hearing Loss Detection: Meta-analysis.
audiometry
digital health
hearing loss
hearing test
meta-analysis
mhealth
mobile health
mobile phone
smartphone diagnostic test accuracy
Journal
JMIR mHealth and uHealth
ISSN: 2291-5222
Titre abrégé: JMIR Mhealth Uhealth
Pays: Canada
ID NLM: 101624439
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
10 09 2021
10 09 2021
Historique:
received:
04
03
2021
accepted:
17
06
2021
revised:
22
05
2021
entrez:
13
9
2021
pubmed:
14
9
2021
medline:
3
11
2021
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
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. 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. 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. 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. 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.
Sections du résumé
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.
Identifiants
pubmed: 34515644
pii: v9i9e28378
doi: 10.2196/28378
pmc: PMC8477297
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Meta-Analysis
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Systematic Review
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
e28378Informations de copyright
©Chih-Hao Chen, Heng-Yu Haley Lin, Mao-Che Wang, Yuan-Chia Chu, Chun-Yu Chang, Chii-Yuan Huang, Yen-Fu Cheng. Originally published in JMIR mHealth and uHealth (https://mhealth.jmir.org), 12.09.2021.
Références
J Prim Care Community Health. 2018 Jan-Dec;9:2150132718803156
pubmed: 30278815
J Sch Health. 2007 May;77(5):225-31
pubmed: 17430434
BMC Med Res Methodol. 2014 May 23;14:70
pubmed: 24884381
JMIR Mhealth Uhealth. 2020 Jan 14;8(1):e14036
pubmed: 31934875
J Am Geriatr Soc. 2016 Apr;64(4):906-8
pubmed: 27100600
Ear Hear. 2017 Mar/Apr;38(2):e93-e100
pubmed: 27764002
Braz J Otorhinolaryngol. 2020 May 5;:
pubmed: 32620319
JMIR Mhealth Uhealth. 2018 Oct 23;6(10):e186
pubmed: 30355558
Audiology. 1989;28(2):61-70
pubmed: 2930364
JMIR Mhealth Uhealth. 2019 Apr 01;7(4):e12033
pubmed: 30932870
Audiol Neurootol. 2013;18(4):201-7
pubmed: 23689282
JAMA. 2018 Jan 23;319(4):388-396
pubmed: 29362800
Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2017 Apr;156(4):706-711
pubmed: 28025906
Ear Hear. 2016 Jan-Feb;37(1):e11-7
pubmed: 26372265
Laryngoscope. 2020 Sep;130(9):2245-2251
pubmed: 31661567
Arch Neurol. 2011 Feb;68(2):214-20
pubmed: 21320988
Glob Health Action. 2009 Mar 19;2:
pubmed: 20027268
Int J Audiol. 2014 Oct;53(10):730-6
pubmed: 24909592
Braz J Otorhinolaryngol. 2015 Nov-Dec;81(6):642-6
pubmed: 26454532
S Afr J Commun Disord. 2018 May 21;65(1):e1-e6
pubmed: 29781704
Acta Clin Belg. 2018 Apr;73(2):132-138
pubmed: 29063810
Am J Epidemiol. 2015 May 1;181(9):680-90
pubmed: 25841870
S Afr Med J. 2015 Jan;105(1):35-9
pubmed: 26046161
JAMA Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2019 Jan 1;145(1):27-34
pubmed: 30419131
Stat Med. 2002 Jun 15;21(11):1559-73
pubmed: 12111920
JMIR Mhealth Uhealth. 2020 Nov 11;8(11):e23047
pubmed: 33174845
Otol Neurotol. 2018 Apr;39(4):410-416
pubmed: 29494473
JMIR Mhealth Uhealth. 2019 Oct 30;7(10):e14198
pubmed: 31670695
J Laryngol Otol. 2016 Mar;130(3):248-51
pubmed: 26781699
J Med Internet Res. 2020 Jul 23;22(7):e17238
pubmed: 32706700
Ear Hear. 2015 Jan;36(1):164-7
pubmed: 25158982
J Clin Epidemiol. 2005 Oct;58(10):982-90
pubmed: 16168343
Int J Audiol. 2015;54(11):777-85
pubmed: 26514954
Telemed J E Health. 2017 Sep;23(9):747-752
pubmed: 28328389
Int J Audiol. 2014 Dec;53(12):841-9
pubmed: 24998412
J Gerontol B Psychol Sci Soc Sci. 2021 Feb 17;76(3):518-523
pubmed: 31628485
Audiol Neurootol. 2020;25(3):120-124
pubmed: 31962328
Gerontologist. 2003 Oct;43(5):661-8
pubmed: 14570962
Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol. 2016 Feb;273(2):333-9
pubmed: 25655259
Lancet. 2020 Aug 8;396(10248):413-446
pubmed: 32738937
Int J Epidemiol. 2001 Dec;30(6):1371-8
pubmed: 11821349
Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol. 2020 Jun;129(6):578-584
pubmed: 31965808
Telemed J E Health. 2010 Jun;16(5):557-63
pubmed: 20575723
J Telemed Telecare. 2010;16(2):53-6
pubmed: 20008052
Int J Audiol. 2017 Sep;56(9):706-710
pubmed: 28485673
Int J Pediatr Otorhinolaryngol. 1999 Dec 15;51(3):165-70
pubmed: 10628542
Ear Hear. 2018 Jul/Aug;39(4):656-663
pubmed: 29189432
JMIR Mhealth Uhealth. 2020 Oct 27;8(10):e17213
pubmed: 33107828
BMC Fam Pract. 2020 Apr 29;21(1):73
pubmed: 32349681
Eur J Public Health. 2013 Feb;23(1):146-52
pubmed: 22197756
Trends Amplif. 2011 Sep;15(3):91-105
pubmed: 21606048
Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol. 2017 Jan;126(1):36-41
pubmed: 27913721
Syst Rev. 2013 Oct 07;2:82
pubmed: 24099098
J Am Acad Audiol. 2017 Mar;28(3):200-208
pubmed: 28277211
Int J Audiol. 2010 Mar;49(3):195-202
pubmed: 20151929
Niger Med J. 2018 Sep-Oct;59(5):55-58
pubmed: 31293289
J Acoust Soc Am. 1968 Aug;44(2):555-62
pubmed: 5665526
Int J Audiol. 2013 Dec;52(12):855-60
pubmed: 24059596
Disabil Rehabil Assist Technol. 2014 Sep;9(5):408-13
pubmed: 24712413
Int J Audiol. 2020 Sep;59(9):666-673
pubmed: 32134341
J Med Internet Res. 2020 Sep 22;22(9):e17927
pubmed: 32960175
Am J Geriatr Psychiatry. 2018 Jul;26(7):788-796
pubmed: 29752060
J Med Internet Res. 2020 Mar 20;22(3):e15875
pubmed: 32196459
Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2007 Jun;133(6):573-81
pubmed: 17576908
Child Care Health Dev. 2010 May;36(3):323-31
pubmed: 20507326
JMIR Mhealth Uhealth. 2020 Aug 5;8(8):e17193
pubmed: 32755885