The Accuracy of IOS Device-based uHear as a Screening Tool for Hearing Loss: A Preliminary Study From the Middle East

Al-Abri, Rashid; Al-Balushi, Mustafa; Kolethekkat, Arif Ali; Bhargava, Deepa; Al-Alwi, Amna; Al-Bahlani, Hana; Al-Garadi, Manal

doi:10.5001/omj.2016.27

Cited by 18 publications

(13 citation statements)

References 10 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Al‐Abri et al ( n = 70) reported that uHear was inconsistent even in a soundproof audiometric booth and lacked specificity in the range of normal hearing. 12 These results align with our findings; in addition to recording a moderate specificity of 78%, we found that when patients were stratified by level of hearing impairment, uHear significantly overestimated hearing impairment in those with normal hearing. Livshitz et al ( n = 60) determined that uHear did not accurately assess hearing thresholds, specifically in the elderly population.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 91%

Virtual audiometric testing using smartphone mobile applications to detect hearing loss

Yesantharao

Donahue

Smith

et al. 2022

Laryngoscope Investig Oto

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective The COVID‐19 pandemic drove the need for remote audiometric testing in the form of mobile applications for hearing assessment. This study sought to determine the accuracy of two smartphone‐based hearing assessment applications, Mimi and uHear, against the gold standard of in‐clinic audiometric testing. Methods One hundred patients that presented to clinic for hearing assessment were randomly assigned to take either the Mimi or uHear hearing test alongside standard audiometric testing. Hearing thresholds measured using mobile applications were compared to those from audiometric testing to assess validity. Patient satisfaction was measured using a questionnaire that queried if the app met the user's need, if they would recommend the app to others, and how likely they were to use the app again. Results Using Mimi, there were no differences in average hearing levels measured at any frequency when compared to standard audiometric testing. uHear overestimated hearing loss at 500 and 1000 Hz (p < .001 for both) by 5–10 Hz, and underestimated hearing loss at 6000 Hz (p < .001) by 5–10 Hz compared to standard audiometric testing. When stratified by level of hearing impairment, uHear overestimated impairment in those with normal hearing (p < .001). Mimi had higher sensitivity (0.971) and specificity (0.912) for hearing loss (defined as a pure tone average for 500, 1000, 2000, and 4000 Hz greater than 25 dB) than uHear (0.914 and 0.780, respectively). However, uHear outranked Mimi on all three questions in the satisfaction questionnaire (p = .01, p = .03, and p = .02, respectively). Conclusion Mimi appears to be a reasonable substitute for standard audiometric testing when individuals cannot present to clinic for gold standard testing; however, the Mimi user experience can be improved. Level of evidence Level II.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 91%

Virtual audiometric testing using smartphone mobile applications to detect hearing loss

Yesantharao

Donahue

Smith

et al. 2022

Laryngoscope Investig Oto

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Audiometric tests can be conducted on specialized equipment as well as on generally accessible electronic devices such as personal computers [ 10 , 22 , 23 ] or mobile devices [ 4 - 9 , 15 - 21 , 24 , 25 ]. However, reliable results may only be obtained if they are correctly calibrated and conducted in silence [ 1 , 15 , 21 , 26 , 27 ]. Assuming that mobile devices sold with bundled headphones have similar frequency characteristics of the sound system within the devices of the same model, it is possible to share calibration coefficients within these groups.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Hearing Tests Based on Biologically Calibrated Mobile Devices: Comparison With Pure-Tone Audiometry

Masalski¹,

Grysiński²,

Kręcicki³

2018

JMIR Mhealth Uhealth

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundHearing screening tests based on pure-tone audiometry may be conducted on mobile devices, provided that the devices are specially calibrated for the purpose. Calibration consists of determining the reference sound level and can be performed in relation to the hearing threshold of normal-hearing persons. In the case of devices provided by the manufacturer, together with bundled headphones, the reference sound level can be calculated once for all devices of the same model.ObjectiveThis study aimed to compare the hearing threshold measured by a mobile device that was calibrated using a model-specific, biologically determined reference sound level with the hearing threshold obtained in pure-tone audiometry.MethodsTrial participants were recruited offline using face-to-face prompting from among Otolaryngology Clinic patients, who own Android-based mobile devices with bundled headphones. The hearing threshold was obtained on a mobile device by means of an open access app, Hearing Test, with incorporated model-specific reference sound levels. These reference sound levels were previously determined in uncontrolled conditions in relation to the hearing threshold of normal-hearing persons. An audiologist-assisted self-measurement was conducted by the participants in a sound booth, and it involved determining the lowest audible sound generated by the device within the frequency range of 250 Hz to 8 kHz. The results were compared with pure-tone audiometry.ResultsA total of 70 subjects, 34 men and 36 women, aged 18-71 years (mean 36, standard deviation [SD] 11) participated in the trial. The hearing threshold obtained on mobile devices was significantly different from the one determined by pure-tone audiometry with a mean difference of 2.6 dB (95% CI 2.0-3.1) and SD of 8.3 dB (95% CI 7.9-8.7). The number of differences not greater than 10 dB reached 89% (95% CI 88-91), whereas the mean absolute difference was obtained at 6.5 dB (95% CI 6.2-6.9). Sensitivity and specificity for a mobile-based screening method were calculated at 98% (95% CI 93-100.0) and 79% (95% CI 71-87), respectively.ConclusionsThe method of hearing self-test carried out on mobile devices with bundled headphones demonstrates high compatibility with pure-tone audiometry, which confirms its potential application in hearing monitoring, screening tests, or epidemiological examinations on a large scale.

show abstract

“…11 A study showed that its specificity improved to 90% when the application was used in a soundproof booth but decreased in a typical hearing environment. 12 These findings were replicated in many studies. 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 …”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 75%

A study on the IOS application “uHear” as a screening tool for hearing loss in Bangkok

Bunnag

Kaewsalubsri

Junthong

et al. 2022

Laryngoscope Investig Oto

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective: This study was designed to compare the results of hearing tests performed using the uHear application with those of standard audiometry in Thai people in Bangkok.Methods: From December 2018 to November 2019, a prospective observational study was conducted involving Thai participants aged between 18 and 80 years. All participants were tested using standard audiometry and the uHear application in a soundproof booth and in a typical hearing environment.Results: This study included 52 participants (12 males and 40 females). The Bland-Altman plot with the Minimal Clinical Meaningful Difference of 10 dB between standard audiometry and the uHear in a soundproof booth found agreement at 2000 Hz. The uHear in a soundproof booth showed high sensitivity at all frequencies (82.5%-98.9%) and high specificity at 500 and 1000 Hz (85.7%-100%). uHear in a typical hearing environment showed high sensitivity at 4000 and 6000 Hz (97.6%) and high specificity at 500 and 1000 Hz (100%). When considering the pure-tone average, uHear in a soundproof booth showed high sensitivity (94.7%) and specificity (90.7%), whereas, in a typical hearing environment, uHear showed poor sensitivity (34%) and high specificity (100%).Conclusion: uHear was accurate for hearing loss screening at 2000 Hz in a soundproof booth. However, uHear in a typical hearing environment lacked accuracy. The uHear application in a soundproof booth can be used to screen hearing loss in some situations where standard audiometry is impossible.

show abstract

The Accuracy of IOS Device-based uHear as a Screening Tool for Hearing Loss: A Preliminary Study From the Middle East

Cited by 18 publications

References 10 publications

Virtual audiometric testing using smartphone mobile applications to detect hearing loss

Virtual audiometric testing using smartphone mobile applications to detect hearing loss

Hearing Tests Based on Biologically Calibrated Mobile Devices: Comparison With Pure-Tone Audiometry

A study on the IOS application “uHear” as a screening tool for hearing loss in Bangkok

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About