Validity of Automated Threshold Audiometry

Mahomed, Faheema; Swanepoel, De Wet; Eikelboom, Robert H.; Soer, Maggi E.

doi:10.1097/aud.0b013e3182944bdf

Cited by 10 publications

(15 citation statements)

References 41 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The study cohort represents a wide range of type and severity of hearing losses, which has been highlighted as a key limitation of previous studies (Mahomed et al, 2013).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In the meta-analysis conducted by Mahomed et al (2013), automated audiometry showed comparable accuracy to manual audiometry, with overall average differences of 0.4 dB (6.1 SD). However, the authors noted that there was limited data on automated bone conduction audiometry and patients with different types and degrees of hearing loss.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Following the successful clinical validation of a number of automated audiometers Margolis et al, 2011;Swanepoel et al, 2010), and a systematic review of their accuracy (Mahomed et al, 2013), the potential scope of these devices has expanded to include full diagnostic hearing assessments for adults, encompassing masked and not-masked air and bone-conduction thresholds.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Clinical validation of automated audiometry with continuous noise-monitoring in a clinically heterogeneous population outside a sound-treated environment

Brennan‐Jones

Eikelboom

Swanepoel

et al. 2016

International Journal of Audiology

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

ABSTRACT:Objective: Examine the accuracy of automated audiometry in a clinically heterogeneous population of adults using the KUDUwave automated audiometer.Design: Prospective accuracy study. Manual audiometry was performed in a sound-treated room and automated audiometry was not conducted in a sound-treated environment.Study Sample: 42 consecutively recruited participants from a tertiary otolaryngology department in Western Australia.Results: Absolute mean differences ranged between 5.12 -9.68 dB (air-conduction) and 8.26 -15.00 dB (bone-conduction). 86.5% of manual and automated 4FAs were within 10 dB (i.e. ±5 dB); 94.8% were within 15 dB. However, there were significant (p<0.05) differences between automated and manual audiometry at 0.25, 0.5, 1 and 2 kHz (air-conduction) and 0.5 and 1 kHz (bone-conduction). The effect of age (≥55 years) on accuracy (p = 0.014) was not significant on linear regression (p>0.05; R 2 = 0.11). The presence of a hearing loss (better ear ≥26 dB) did not significantly affect accuracy (p = 0.604; air-conduction), (p = 0.218; boneconduction). Conclusions:This study provides clinical validation of automated audiometry using the KUDUwave in a clinically heterogeneous population, without the use of a sound-treated environment. Whilst threshold variations were statistically significant, future research is needed to ascertain the clinical significance of such variation.

show abstract

“…The study cohort represents a wide range of type and severity of hearing losses, which has been highlighted as a key limitation of previous studies (Mahomed et al, 2013).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Clinical validation of automated audiometry with continuous noise-monitoring in a clinically heterogeneous population outside a sound-treated environment

Brennan‐Jones

Eikelboom

Swanepoel

et al. 2016

International Journal of Audiology

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The latter can be trained in tasks such as otoscopy (Biagio, Swanepoel, Adeyemo, Hall, & Vinck, 2013) and automated audiometry (Mahomed, Swanepoel, Eikelboom, & Soer, 2013), as well as facilitating synchronous tele-audiometry (D. Swanepoel, Koekemoer, & Clark, 2010).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

International Survey of Audiologists' Attitudes Toward Telehealth

Eikelboom

Swanepoel

2016

Am J Audiol

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose: A better understanding of the attitudes of audiologists toward teleaudiology and their willingness to use teleaudiology is required to progress the application of teleaudiology technologies and services into clinical practice. Audiologists around the world were surveyed on their attitudes toward teleaudiology and their willingness to use it.Method: An online survey was sent to audiologists through professional associations" mailing lists. The survey included questions on the use of computer and video-conferencing technologies, awareness and previous use of teleaudiology, and willingness to use teleaudiology. Results:Responses were provided by 269 people from 28 different countries, representing a wide cross section of experience, qualification and work settings. 77.8% of respondents were female. Almost all respondents had used PC-based video-conferencing, most had used related technologies and reported positive attitudes to using these. However, less than 25% had used teleaudiology. Conclusions

show abstract

“…However, new and innovative technologies that are low-cost, easy to use, and automated have recently been developed and may be useful in overcoming some of the challenges. For instance, replacing PTA (typically conducted by an audiologist) with automated computer-based audiometry can provide comparable results on threshold testing [15]. Developers of smartphone apps have begun to harness this technology to generate apps for performing self-administered hearing screening tests.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Validated Smartphone-Based Apps for Ear and Hearing Assessments: A Review

Bright¹,

Pallawela²

2016

JMIR Rehabil Assist Technol

141

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundAn estimated 360 million people have a disabling hearing impairment globally, the vast majority of whom live in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). Early identification through screening is important to negate the negative effects of untreated hearing impairment. Substantial barriers exist in screening for hearing impairment in LMICs, such as the requirement for skilled hearing health care professionals and prohibitively expensive specialist equipment to measure hearing. These challenges may be overcome through utilization of increasingly available smartphone app technologies for ear and hearing assessments that are easy to use by unskilled professionals.ObjectiveOur objective was to identify and compare available apps for ear and hearing assessments and consider the incorporation of such apps into hearing screening programsMethodsIn July 2015, the commercial app stores Google Play and Apple App Store were searched to identify apps for ear and hearing assessments. Thereafter, six databases (EMBASE, MEDLINE, Global Health, Web of Science, CINAHL, and mHealth Evidence) were searched to assess which of the apps identified in the commercial review had been validated against gold standard measures. A comparison was made between validated apps.ResultsApp store search queries returned 30 apps that could be used for ear and hearing assessments, the majority of which are for performing audiometry. The literature search identified 11 eligible validity studies that examined 6 different apps. uHear, an app for self-administered audiometry, was validated in the highest number of peer reviewed studies against gold standard pure tone audiometry (n=5). However, the accuracy of uHear varied across these studies.ConclusionsVery few of the available apps have been validated in peer-reviewed studies. Of the apps that have been validated, further independent research is required to fully understand their accuracy at detecting ear and hearing conditions.

show abstract

Validity of Automated Threshold Audiometry

Cited by 10 publications

References 41 publications

Clinical validation of automated audiometry with continuous noise-monitoring in a clinically heterogeneous population outside a sound-treated environment

Clinical validation of automated audiometry with continuous noise-monitoring in a clinically heterogeneous population outside a sound-treated environment

International Survey of Audiologists' Attitudes Toward Telehealth

Validated Smartphone-Based Apps for Ear and Hearing Assessments: A Review

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About