Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2022 Feb 23;34(3):e20200380.
doi: 10.1590/2317-1782/20212020380. eCollection 2022.

Accuracy of smartphone-based hearing screening tests: a systematic review

Inara Maria Monteiro Melo  1 , Aline Roberta Xavier Silva  1 , Rodolpho Camargo  2 , Hannalice Gottschalk Cavalcanti  3 , Deborah Viviane Ferrari  2 , Karinna Veríssimo Meira Taveira  1 , Sheila Andreoli Balen  1
Affiliations

Accuracy of smartphone-based hearing screening tests: a systematic review

Inara Maria Monteiro Melo et al. Codas. .

Abstract
in English, Portuguese

Purpose: To verify the accuracy of smartphone apps to identify hearing loss.

Research strategies: A systematic review followed the PRISMA-DATA checklist. The search strategies were applied across four databases (Lilacs, PubMed, Scopus and Web of Science) and grey literature (Google Scholar, OpenGrey, and ProQuest Dissertations and Thesis).

Selection criteria: The acronym PIRD was used in review. This included populations of any gender and all age groups. The Index test is the smartphone-based hearing screening test; the Reference test is the pure-tone audiometry, which is considered the gold reference for hearing diagnostics; the diagnosis was performed via validity data (sensitivity and specificity) to identify hearing loss and diagnostic studies.

Data analysis: Two reviewers selected the studies in a two-step process. The risk of bias was assessed according to the criteria of the QUADAS-2.

Results: Of 1395 articles, 104 articles were eligible for full-text reading and 17 were included. Only four met all criteria for methodological quality. All of the included studies were published in English between 2015 and 2020. The applications Digits-in noise Test (5 articles), uHear (4 articles), HearScreen (2 articles), hearTest (2 articles) and Hearing Test (2 articles) were the most studied. All this application showed sensitivity and specificity values between 75 and 100%. The other applications were EarScale, uHearing Test, Free field hearing (FFH) and Free Hearing Test.

Conclusion: uHear, Digit-in-Noise Test, HearTest and HearScreen have shown significant values of sensitivity and specificity and can be considered as the most accurate methods for screening of hearing impairment.

Objetivo: Verificar a acurácia dos aplicativos de smartphone para identificar a perda auditiva.

Estratégias de pesquisa: Uma revisão sistemática seguiu o checklist PRISMA-DATA. As estratégias de busca foram aplicadas nos bancos de dados Lilacs, PubMed, Scopus e Web of Science e na literatura cinzenta (Google Scholar, OpenGrey e ProQuest Dissertations and Thesis).

Critérios de seleção: O anacrônimo PIRD foi usado na revisão. Incluiu populações de qualquer gênero e todas as faixas etárias. O teste Index foi o de triagem auditiva baseado em smartphone; o teste de referência foi a audiometria tonal; o diagnóstico foi realizado por meio de dados de validade (sensibilidade e especificidade) para identificação da perda auditiva e estudos diagnósticos.

Análise de dados: Dois revisores selecionaram os estudos em um processo de duas etapas. O risco de viés foi avaliado de acordo com os critérios do QUADAS-2.

Resultados: De 1395 artigos, 104 artigos foram elegíveis para leitura de texto completo e 17 foram incluídos. Apenas quatro preencheram todos os critérios de qualidade metodológica. Todos os estudos incluídos foram publicados em inglês entre 2015 e 2020. Os aplicativos mais estudados foram: Digits-in-noise (5 artigos), uHear (4 artigos), HearScreen (2 artigos), hearTest (2 artigos) e Hearing Test (2 artigos). Todos apresentaram valores de sensibilidade e especificidade entre 75 e 100%. Os outros aplicativos foram EarScale, uHearing, Free Field Hearing e teste Free Hearing.

Conclusão: uHear, Digit-in-Noise Test, HearTest e HearScreen apresentaram valores significativos de sensibilidade e especificidade e podem ser considerados os métodos mais precisos para rastreamento de deficiência auditiva.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Conflict of interests: nothing to declare.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1. Flow Diagram of Literature Search and Selection Criteria(1)
Figure 2
Figure 2. Quality assessment through the Quality Assessment Tool for Diagnostic Accuracy Studies-2 (QUADAS-2)
See this image and copyright information in PMC

References

    1. WHO: World Health Organization . WHO global estimates on prevalence of hearing loss: prevention of deafness. Switzerland: WHO; 2018. [cited 2022 Feb 02]. Internet. Available from: https://www.who.int/deafness/Global-estimates-on-prevalence-of-hearing-l... .
    1. WHO: World Health Organization . Deafness and hearing loss. Switzerland: WHO; 2021. [cited 2022 Feb 02]. Internet. Available from: https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/deafness-and-hearing-loss .
    1. Jayawardena A, Waller B, Edwards B, Larsen-Reindorf R, Anomah JE, Frimpong B, et al. Portable audiometric screening platforms used in low-resource settings: a review. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2019. pp. 74–79. - PubMed
    1. Swanepoel D, Clark JL. Hearing healthcare in remote or resource-constrained environments. J Laryngol Otol. 2019;133(1):11–17. doi: 10.1017/S0022215118001159. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Swanepoel DW, Sousa KC, Smits C, Moore DR. Mobile applications to detect hearing impairment: opportunities and challenges. Bull World Health Organ. 2019;97(10):717–718. doi: 10.2471/BLT.18.227728. - DOI - PMC - PubMed

Publication types