Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40140004›Full record

ArticleEuropean archives of oto-rhino-laryngology : official journal of the European Federation of Oto-Rhino-Laryngological Societies (EUFOS) : affiliated with the German Society for Oto-Rhino-Laryngology - Head and Neck Surgery2025

Evaluating the diagnostic accuracy and reliability of mobile audiometry for screening hearing loss in adults in comparison to pure tone audiometry.

Umashri Sundararaju, Shanmathi Subramanian, Shanmuga Ashok Siva, Aishwarya Prateep, Bhoobli Thulasiram Lavanya, Hamrish Kumar Rajakumar

Abstract readComparative Study
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in European archives of oto-rhino-laryngology : official journal of the European Federation of Oto-Rhino-Laryngological Societies (EUFOS) : affiliated with the German Society for Oto-Rhino-Laryngology - Head and Neck Surgery, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Umashri Sundararaju *Government Medical College, Omandurar Government Estate, Chennai, Tamilnadu, 600 002, India. umashriutgml@gmail.com.ORCID http://orcid.org/0009-0004-6488-4172
Shanmathi Subramanian *Government Medical College, Omandurar Government Estate, Chennai, Tamilnadu, 600 002, India. shanmathi2k1@gmail.com.ORCID http://orcid.org/0009-0006-0260-7801
Shanmuga Ashok SivaGovernment Medical College, Omandurar Government Estate, Chennai, Tamilnadu, 600 002, India.ORCID http://orcid.org/0009-0000-6773-164X
Aishwarya PrateepGovernment Medical College, Omandurar Government Estate, Chennai, Tamilnadu, 600 002, India.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-4800-9445
Bhoobli Thulasiram LavanyaGovernment Medical College, Omandurar Government Estate, Chennai, Tamilnadu, 600 002, India.
Hamrish Kumar RajakumarGovernment Medical College, Omandurar Government Estate, Chennai, Tamilnadu, 600 002, India. hamrishkumar2003@gmail.com.ORCID http://orcid.org/0009-0008-9642-9915

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundHearing loss affects approximately 1.5 billion people globally, with a significant proportion unaware of their condition due to inadequate screening. The current standard for diagnosing hearing loss, pure tone audiometry (PTA), faces limitations in accessibility and cost, especially in low-resource settings. Our study aimed to evaluate mobile audiometry (MA) as a self-assessment screening tool for the general public.

methodsThe study compared audiograms obtained via PTA in a sound-proof room and MA using a smartphone in a physician's office with ambient noise using relatively inexpensive, readily available generic headsets and earphones. MA was a self-assessment test where patients followed instructions from investigators but conducted the test independently under supervision. Each ear was tested separately without masking. Spearman's correlation assessed the association between MA and PTA, and Bland-Altman's analysis evaluated agreement. Diagnostic accuracy, sensitivity, and specificity were calculated using contingency tables. Kappa statistic measured reliability and test-retest reliability was assessed with Intraclass Correlation Coefficient (ICC).

resultsThe study consisting of 250 participants (110 males and 140 females), with an average age of 43.5 years revealed strong agreement and correlation between audiograms obtained from PTA and MA. The diagnostic accuracy for classifying the degree of hearing loss was moderate, at 70%. MA exhibited high sensitivity (94.51%) and good specificity (70.96%) for screening hearing loss. The reliability of MA is good with a kappa statistic value of 0.659. The test-retest reliability of MA was assessed using ICC which was found to be 0.843.

conclusionsMA could serve as an effective screening tool for hearing loss. Individuals identified with hearing loss through MA could be referred to a physician's office for further evaluation and timely management. However, limitations such as environmental noise and variability in headset quality may affect the accuracy of the results. Further research is needed to address these challenges and improve the reliability of MA.

Indexed as

Audiometry, Pure-ToneHearing LossMass ScreeningSmartphoneAdultAgedFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedReproducibility of ResultsSensitivity and SpecificityYoung AdultCost-effectivenessDiagnostic accuracyHearing loss screeningMobile audiometrySelf-assessmentSensitivity and specificity

Identifiers

PMID40140004

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.