ArticleJournal of otolaryngology - head & neck surgery = Le Journal d'oto-rhino-laryngologie et de chirurgie cervico-faciale
Accuracy and Reliability of Automated iPad Audiometry for Hearing Screening in Community Setting Compared with Gold Standard Pure Tone Audiometry in Sound Booth.
Article in Journal of otolaryngology - head & neck surgery = Le Journal d'oto-rhino-laryngologie et de chirurgie cervico-faciale. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
ImportanceEfficient and accurate tools for early detection of hearing loss are essential for reducing delays in diagnosis and treatment.ObjectiveTo determine the accuracy and reliability of Automated iPad Hearing Screening (AIHS) as a screening tool compared to a formal pure tone audiometry (PTA).DesignA parallel cross-sectional study.SettingTertiary referral center in Hong Kong.ParticipantsSeventy-nine adult patients (158 ears) aged from 28 to 87 who were diagnosed with hearing loss were included.Exposure or InterventionParticipants underwent the AIHS screening at 1, 2, 4, and 0.5 kHz in the right and left ears, respectively, prior to a formal PTA, focusing solely on air conduction thresholds.Main Outcome MeasuresSensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, negative predictive value, and area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) for detecting hearing loss at 3 thresholds: >25, >40, and >60 dBHL. Intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) and Bland-Altman analysis were used to assess agreement between AIHS and PTA.ResultsExcellent sensitivity and specificity of the AHIS were identified across 3 age groups and different hearing levels. The AUCs of AHIS were .917 (95% CI: .842-.993), .911 (.863-.960), and .968 (.942-.994) for thresholds over 25, 40, and 60 dBHL, respectively. ICC = .901 (.864-.927) and Bland-Altman analysis indicated good agreement between these 2 methods.ConclusionThe AIHS is a simple, intuitive, and portable screening test for hearing loss that can be repeated with high accuracy and reliability at relatively low cost.
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.