ArticleInternational archives of otorhinolaryngology2026
Evaluating the Accuracy and User Satisfaction of Culturally-Relevant Kannada-Based Hearing Screening App Compared to Technical Screening Method.
Article in International archives of otorhinolaryngology, 2026. 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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Non-technical hearing screening using a self-assessment questionnaire in a mobile app offers a low-cost solution for at-risk populations. The present study developed Kannada-language hearing questions using health literacy principles-plain language, simple phrasing, and dialect inclusion-to improve accessibility for underserved groups. Objective: To evaluate the effectiveness of culturally relevant Kannada hearing questions in detecting hearing loss compared with technical screening. The objectives were to assess the content validity of the new questionnaire, compare the accuracy of technical and non-technical screening apps against conventional pure-tone audiometry, and measure client satisfaction. Study Sample and Design: Eighty-four participants aged 20 to 45 years with minimal-to- moderate hearing loss were evaluated using a comparative research design. Methods: A standardised adult hearing questionnaire was developed and content-validated. Each participant underwent hearing screening with both technical and non-technical mobile apps, followed by a client satisfaction survey. Conventional pure-tone audiometry (0.5-8 kHz) was used to determine hearing thresholds. Results: The technical screening app demonstrated 97% sensitivity and accuracy, with 95% specificity. Although the non-technical app initially showed lower accuracy, employing a two-refer threshold improved its performance to 86% sensitivity, 100% specificity, and 97% accuracy. Additionally, user satisfaction ratings were higher for the non-technical app. Conclusion: With a two-refer threshold, the accuracy of the Kannada non-technical screening app was comparable to that of the technical screening method. Clinical Relevance: The self-guided technical app benefits individuals with technical proficiency, while the non-technical screening is ideal for native speakers with dexterity issues or limited technical skills.
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.