ArticleThe Laryngoscope2026
Validation of Non-Soundproof Tablet Audiometry in Pediatrics: Comparison With Traditional Audiometry.
Article in The Laryngoscope, 2026. 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.
- Validation of Non-Soundproof Tablet Audiometry in Pediatrics: Comparison With Traditional Audiometry.The Laryngoscope · 2026Article
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
Abstract
objectivesPortable, tablet-based audiometry has been proposed as a diagnostic tool for patients unable to access traditional sound booth audiometry. However, the validity of tablet-based audiometry for diagnostic use in pediatric patients has not been established. The objective of this study is to validate self-administered tablet-based diagnostic audiometry in a pediatric clinic setting.
methodsChildren 4 to 17.9 years-old were recruited from a pediatric audiology clinic. Tablet audiometry was performed with tablet-based software, SHOEBOX Audiometry (Ottawa, ON) at six frequencies (250-8000 Hz). Hearing thresholds from traditional pure tone audiometry in a sound booth were used as a gold-standard comparison. Hearing loss was defined as ≥ 1 hearing threshold of > 20 dB.
results120 children underwent tablet-audiometry, though not all were able to complete the test. In 948 individual frequencies tested, the mean threshold difference was -0.95 dB (95% CI -1.5 to -0.42 dB) between traditional and tablet audiogram. Most tablet-assessed thresholds (92%, n = 873) were within 10 dB of corresponding traditional audiometry thresholds. Tablet audiometry demonstrated 92% sensitivity (95% CI 84%-97%) and 85% specificity (95% CI 77%-92%) for diagnosis of hearing loss. Test-retest reliability of tablet audiometry was high, with 93% (55/59) of test-retest hearing threshold differences falling within ±5 dB.
conclusionTablet audiometry is valid and reliable for children aged 5-17 years who can successfully complete testing in a non-soundproof clinic setting. It may serve as a tool for remote hearing testing, with potential applications in schools, clinics, and research. 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.