ReviewDigital health
A systematic review of mHealth-based paediatric hearing screening tools/devices.
Review in Digital health. 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Despite the proven effectiveness of traditional screening devices for Early Hearing Detection and Intervention (EHDI) programs, the costs of these instruments are high to be implemented as a sustainable solution for low- and middle-income countries. Mobile Health (mHealth) hearing screeners are an alternative solution to support EHDI programs. Therefore, demand is increasing for accessible, affordable and scalable alternatives. Objective: This review reports on the validity, costs, status (commercially available/non-commercially available) of the mHealth screeners available globally for the paediatric population. Method: A systematic search of PubMed, Scopus and Google Scholar was conducted. Articles published from 2014 and study populations of 0-18 years were eligible. Thirty-eight studies met the inclusion criteria, and 27 mHealth screeners were identified in this review. Results: Three objective screeners were identified, OAEBuds, hearOAE and off-the-shelf OAE. Twenty-four subjective screeners were identified, mainly using pure-tone audiometry, game-based tests and speech-in-noise tests. Subjective screeners target children above 3 years of age. Sensitivity and specificity were comparable to those of traditional screeners, although the validation methodologies varied. Only one objective screener is commercially available. Few screeners are available free of cost and as open-source software. Compared to previous reviews on mHealth devices, this review captured objective hearing screeners. Conclusion: The review outlined the need for more mHealth-based screeners for lower age groups, particularly for infants and toddlers, as most of the identified screeners catered to an older population of more than three years of age.
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.