ArticleJournal of audiology & otology2023
Hearing Screening Alternative Using a Website-Based Application.
Article in Journal of audiology & otology, 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.
- The Accuracy of Self-Administered Web- and App-Based Tools for Audiometric Tests-A Systematic Review.Audiology research · 2025Review
- Assessing the accuracy and reliability of application-based audiometry for hearing evaluation.Scientific reports · 2024Article
- Review
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.
Funding
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND
objectivesIndonesians encounter several barriers to regular functional hearing assessment. Hearing loss screening is only provided by tertiary-care hospitals that are not reachable by people in remote regions. This study aimed to develop a website-based hearing screening application that is accessible and inexpensive. Subjects and.
methodsThis comparative study was conducted between July and August 2022 in the Otolaryngology Clinic of Muhammadiyah Bandung Hospital with noise levels below 50 dB. The hearing screening was conducted using a website-based application (www.Screenout.id) and audiogram as the gold standard method. On ScreenOut, patients heard sounds with frequencies at 500, 1,000, 2,000, 4,000, and 8,000 Hz and sound intensity of each frequency at 35, 55, and 75 dB using earphones.
resultsA total of 133 participants were enrolled in our study. ScreenOut showed high sensitivity, specificity, accuracy, positive predictive value, and negative predictive value (90.9%, 98.9%, 93.6%, 99.4%, and 84.8%, respectively). Regarding hearing threshold, a very strong correlation was found between ScreenOut and audiogram, ranging between r=0.843 and r=0.899. Aside from that, there was no significant difference in hearing threshold values between ScreenOut and audiogram.
conclusionsMany advantages of the ScreenOut were found, including low-cost, accessibility, and easy-to-use interface, making it favorably used in low-middle-income countries such as Indonesia.
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.