SynthesisCoDAS2022
Accuracy of smartphone-based hearing screening tests: a systematic review.
Synthesis in CoDAS, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
11 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 16 citations in OpenAlex.
- Wearable Technology, Smart Home Systems, and Mobile Apps for the Self‑Management of Patient Outcomes in Dementia Care: Systematic Review.Journal of medical Internet research · 2025Pooled it
- Prevalence of Hearing, Vision and Cognitive Impairment and Impact in Older Adults in Home Care: A Study Protocol.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2026Article
- Evaluating the Accuracy and User Satisfaction of Culturally-Relevant Kannada-Based Hearing Screening App Compared to Technical Screening Method.International archives of otorhinolaryngology · 2026Article
- Protocol for a Pre-Post Field Trial of a Home Hearing and Vision Care Program for Older Australians With Diverse Cognitive Abilities and Hearing and/or Vision Impairment.Health science reports · 2026Article
- Application of a low-cost instrument to identify risk for hearing disorders in a municipal health network.CoDAS · 2026Observational
- VALIDATION OF A BEHAVIOURAL, SPEECH SPECTRUM/SPEECH BASED mHEALTH HEARING SCREENER FOR CHILDREN.Wellcome open research · 2026Article
- Understanding Primary Care Providers' Attitudes and Practices for Hearing Loss Screening, Diagnosis, and Treatment.Journal of the American Academy of Audiology · 2025Article
- Polygenic Risk Scores and Hearing Loss Phenotypes in Children.JAMA otolaryngology-- head & neck surgery · 2024Article
- Smartphone-Based Artificial Intelligence for the Detection and Diagnosis of Pediatric Diseases: A Comprehensive Review.Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Review
- Assessing the accuracy and reliability of application-based audiometry for hearing evaluation.Scientific reports · 2024Article
- The Hearing Test App for Android Devices: Distinctive Features of Pure-Tone Audiometry Performed on Mobile Devices.Medical devices (Auckland, N.Z.) · 2024Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTo 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.
resultsOf 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.
conclusionuHear, 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.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.