ArticleAnnals of family medicine2025
Hearing Screening in Private Family Practice Medicine Using Tablet Applications.
Article in Annals of family medicine, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Information Technology in Primary Care Screenings: Ready for Prime Time?Annals of family medicine · 2025Article
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
purposeHearing loss is a common deficit that remains underdiagnosed. To address this issue, automatic self-hearing tests have been developed. These tools are based on pure-tone detection and speech-in-noise evaluation. The present study evaluated the acceptability and the feasibility of hearing screening for patients consulting in private family practice medicine.
methodsData were collected in 3 French medical care centers from May through November 2022. Fast pure-tone (SoTone) and speech-in-noise (SoNoise) tests were available on the SONUP application. Three parameters were measured: (1) duration of the protocol; (2) pertinence of performing both pure-tone and speech-in-noise tests; and (3) number of hearing-impaired patients detected and their follow-up (ie, consultation with an ear, nose, and throat [ENT] specialist, and hearing aid fitting).
resultsOf the 516 eligible patients, 219 (42%) were able to perform both tests. Among the screened patients, 161 (74%) had negative test results, while 59 (27%) had positive results indicating hearing loss. Although patients were encouraged to consult an ENT specialist, only 14 did so, and 8 agreed to be fitted with hearing aids. The average duration of the tests, including the explanation (1 minute 43 seconds), was 6 minutes 8 seconds. Interestingly, the SoTone (1 minute 10 seconds), appears to be sufficient for detecting hearing loss.
conclusionsThis study supports integration of app-based hearing screenings into family medical care, as it is compatible with routine consultations. The use of tablet-based applications may assist general practitioners by enhancing the diagnosis of hearing disorders.
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.