ArticleTrends in hearing
Development and Validation of a Self-Administered Online Hearing Test.
Article in Trends in hearing. 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.
- AI-Based Measurement Tools for Intrinsic Capacity in Older Adults: Scoping Review.Journal of medical Internet research · 2026Article
- An Augmented Reality Audio-Motor Training Game for Improving Speech-in-Noise Perception: Single-Arm Pilot Feasibility Study.JMIR formative research · 2026Article
- Occupational Noise Exposure and Self-Reported Hearing Loss amongst Workers in Primary Coffee Processing Factories in Ethiopia.Noise & healthArticle
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
We describe the development and validation of a self-administered online hearing test, which screens for hearing loss and provides an estimated audiogram. The hearing test computes test results from age, self-reported hearing abilities, and self-assessed pure-tone thresholds. It relies on regression, Bayesian and binary classification, leveraging probabilistic effects of age as well as interfrequency and interaural relationships in audiograms. The test was devised based on development data, collected prospectively in an online experiment from a purposive convenience sample of 251 adult American, Australian, Canadian, and Swiss participants, 58% of whom had hearing loss. Later, we externally validated the hearing test. Validation data were collected prospectively from a representative sample of 156 adult Belgian participants, 15% of whom had hearing loss. Participants completed the hearing test and audiometric assessments at home. The results for the primary screening outcome showed that the hearing test screened for mild hearing losses with a sensitivity of 0.83 [95%-confidence interval (CI): 0.65, 0.96], specificity of 0.94 [CI: 0.89, 0.98], positive predictive value of 0.70 [CI: 0.57, 0.87], and negative predictive value of 0.97 [CI: 0.94, 0.99]. Results for the secondary audiogram estimation outcome showed mean differences between estimated and gold standard hearing thresholds ranging from 2.1 to 12.4 dB, with an average standard deviation of the differences of 14.8 dB. In conclusion, the hearing test performed comparably to state-of-the-art hearing screeners. This test, therefore, is a validated alternative to existing screening tools, and, additionally, it provides an estimated audiogram.
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.