ArticleLaryngoscope investigative otolaryngology2023
A study on the IOS application "uHear" as a screening tool for hearing loss in Bangkok.
Article in Laryngoscope investigative otolaryngology, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Developing a diagnostic support system for audiogram interpretation using deep learning-based object detection.Journal of otology · 2025Article
- A study on the IOS application "uHear" as a screening tool for hearing loss in Bangkok.Laryngoscope investigative otolaryngology · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
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.
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.