ArticlePloS one2023
Validation of web-based audiometry version of HEARZAP.
Article in PloS one, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Efficacy of virtual reality pure-tone audiometry in training of hearing test for audiologist.Heliyon · 2024Article
- Breaking Sound Barriers: Exploring Tele-Audiology's Impact on Hearing Healthcare.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Review
- Description of a new low-cost and open-source audiometer and its validation with normal-hearing listeners: The Aupiometer.PloS one · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
aimThe purpose of this study was to verify the accuracy of the web-based audiometer HEARZAP in determining hearing thresholds for both air and bone conduction.
methodUsing a cross-sectional validation design, the web-based audiometer was compared to a gold standard audiometer. Participants in the study totaled 50 (100 ears), of which 25 (50 ears) had normal hearing sensitivity and 25 (50 ears) had various types and degrees of hearing loss. All subjects underwent pure tone audiometry, including air and bone conduction thresholds, using the web-based and gold standard audiometers in a random order. A pause between the two tests was allowed if the patient felt comfortable. The testing for the web-based audiometer and gold standard audiometer was done by two different audiologists with similar qualifications in order to eliminate tester bias. Both the procedures were performed in a sound treated room.
resultsFor air conduction thresholds and bone conduction thresholds, respectively, the mean discrepancies between the web-based audiometer and the gold standard audiometer were 1.22 dB HL (SD = 4.61) and 0.8 dB HL (SD = 4.1). The ICC for air conduction thresholds between the two techniques was 0.94 and for the bone conduction thresholds was 0.91. The Bland Altman plots likewise indicated excellent reliability between the two measurements, with the mean difference between the HEARZAP and the gold standard audiometry falling within the top and lower limits of agreement.
conclusionThe web-based audiometry version of HEARZAP produced precise findings for hearing thresholds that were comparable to those obtained from an established gold standard audiometer. HEARZAP, has the potential to support multi-clinic functionality and enhance service access.
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.