ArticlePloS one2023
AMTASTM and user-operated smartphone research application audiometry-An evaluation study.
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 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Mobile Audiometry for Use in Ototoxicity Monitoring Programs: A Scoping Review.Journal of audiology & otology · 2025Review
- Description of a new low-cost and open-source audiometer and its validation with normal-hearing listeners: The Aupiometer.PloS one · 2024Article
- Multi-omics in exploring the pathophysiology of diabetic retinopathy.Frontiers in cell and developmental biology · 2024Review
- 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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo evaluate two user-operated audiometry methods, the AMTASTM PC-based audiometry and a low-cost smartphone audiometry research application (R-App).
designA repeated-measures within-subject study design was used to compare both user-operated methods to traditional manual audiometry and to evaluate test-retest reliability of each method. STUDY SAMPLE: 58 subjects were recruited in the study of which 83 ears had normal hearing thresholds and 33 ears had hearing loss (pure-tone average > 25 dB HL). Average age of participants was 44.8 years, with an age range of 11-85.
resultsStandard deviation of absolute differences ranged between 3.9-6.9 dB on AMTASTM and 4.5-6.8 dB on the R-App. The highest variability was found at the 8000 Hz frequency (R-App and AMTASTM test) and 3000 Hz frequency (AMTASTM retest). Evaluation of test-retest reliability of AMTASTM and R-App showed SD of absolute differences ranging between 3.5-5.8 dB and 3.1-5.0 dB, respectively. The mean threshold difference between test and retest was within ±1.5 dB on AMTASTM and ±1 dB on the R-App.
conclusionAccuracy of AMTASTM and the R-App was within acceptable limits for audiometry and comparable to traditional manual audiometry on all tested frequencies (250-8000 Hz). Evaluation of test-retest reliability showed acceptable variation on both AMTASTM and R-App. Both user-operated methods could be reliably performed in a quiet non-soundproofed environment.
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.