ArticleLaryngoscope investigative otolaryngology2022
Virtual audiometric testing using smartphone mobile applications to detect hearing loss.
Article in Laryngoscope investigative otolaryngology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers.
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, 23 citations in OpenAlex.
- Self-Fit vs. Professional-Fit Over-the-Counter Hearing Aids: A Randomized Clinical Trial.Journal of the American Academy of Audiology · 2026Trial
- Assessment of Hearing Health Among Adults in Rural Health Clinics.The Laryngoscope · 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
- The Accuracy of Self-Administered Web- and App-Based Tools for Audiometric Tests-A Systematic Review.Audiology research · 2025Review
- Development and testing of an open source mobile application for audiometry test result analysis and diagnosis support.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Validating Smartphone-Based and Web-Based Applications for Remote Hearing Assessment.Journal of the American Academy of Audiology · 2025Article
- Digital speech hearing screening using a quick novel mobile hearing impairment assessment: an observational correlation study.Scientific reports · 2024Observational
- Delayed hearing loss after cochlear implantation: Re-evaluating the role of hair cell degeneration.Hearing research · 2024Article
- Cross-Modal Sensory Boosting to Improve High-Frequency Hearing Loss: Device Development and Validation.JMIRx med · 2024Article
- Neurological update: neuro-otology 2023.Journal of neurology · 2023Article
- Virtual audiometric testing using smartphone mobile applications to detect hearing loss.Laryngoscope investigative otolaryngology · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
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 ( 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.
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.