SynthesisBrazilian journal of otorhinolaryngology
Validation of self-hearing test in non-clinical setting: a systematic literature review.
Synthesis in Brazilian journal of otorhinolaryngology. 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesThis systematic literature review is focused on comparing automated audiometry with manual audiometry in nonclinical settings, with the primary objective of obtaining a comprehensive understanding of the advantages, limitations, and overall efficacy of automated audiometry.
methodsFollowing the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA 2020) guidelines and being registered at PROSPERO, the review utilises Joanna Briggs Institute Critical Appraisal tools to evaluate the quality and rigour of 11 selected research studies.
resultsKey findings highlight sensitivity and specificity ranging from 71% to 98.5%. Time efficiency considerations reveal a 12.3% faster smartphone screening time than conventional screening. The validation in children, as demonstrated, underscores the potential use of self-administered applications as initial tests for hearing problems in this demographic.
conclusionThis comprehensive review underscores the validity, reliability, and potential advantages of automated audiometry over traditional methods in nonclinical settings. While manual audiometry has long been considered the gold standard, automated audiometry demonstrates comparable outcomes, yielding clinically acceptable audiograms and offering potential cost-saving benefits.
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.