ArticleLaryngoscope investigative otolaryngology2024
Tools for telehealth: A correlational analysis of app-based hearing testing.
Article in Laryngoscope investigative otolaryngology, 2024. 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.
- The Accuracy of Self-Administered Web- and App-Based Tools for Audiometric Tests-A Systematic Review.Audiology research · 2025Review
- Tools for telehealth: A correlational analysis of app-based hearing testing.Laryngoscope investigative otolaryngology · 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: Telehealth evaluation of hearing is rapidly evolving; however, the lack of consensus on the most accurate remote hearing test application has made hearing evaluation complicated. The objective of this study was to evaluate the correlation between the pure tone audiometry results obtained from app-based hearing testing programs and a traditional audiogram. Methods: A prospective within-subject and between-subject study design was used to correlate audiogram results between app-based hearing programs and a traditional audiogram. All participants completed a traditional audiogram, 1 commercial app-based test (ShoeBox), 2 consumer app-based tests (EarTrumpet and Hearing Test and Ear Age Test [HTEAT]), and a Hearing Handicap Inventory screening version (HHI-S). Testing was conducted in an acoustically controlled environment (traditional) and a quiet room (app-based hearing tests). Results: A total of 39 participants were enrolled in the study (21 with normal hearing and 18 with hearing loss). In patients with normal hearing, only the commercial hearing testing app (ShoeBox) had a statistically significant pure tone average correlation in both ears with traditional audiometry (Right ear- Conclusion: Commercial-grade app-based pure tone audiometry demonstrates overall strong correlation and accuracy with traditional audiometry. The HHI-S assessment remains a valid and useful tool to predict normal hearing and hearing impairment. Level of Evidence: 2.
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.