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 Dec 12;8(1):253-261.
doi: 10.1002/lio2.996. eCollection 2023 Feb.

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

Kanokrat Bunnag  1 , Wikallaya Kaewsalubsri  1 , Sirinan Junthong  1 , Anan Kulthaveesup  1
Affiliations

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

Kanokrat Bunnag et al. Laryngoscope Investig Otolaryngol. .

Abstract

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.

Level of evidence: II.

Keywords: hearing loss; screening tool; uHear.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

The authors declare no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Figures

FIGURE 1
FIGURE 1
Bland–Altman plot of the hearing test at 500 Hz between standard audiometry and uHear in a soundproof booth. Difference: The standard audiometry value was subtracted from the uHear in a soundproof booth value. Average: The average of the standard audiometry value and uHear in a soundproof booth value. Mean = 3.59 dB. Differences between the uHear in a soundproof booth values and the standard audiometry values were not more than 10 dB in 89 ears (85.58%)
FIGURE 2
FIGURE 2
Bland–Altman plot of the hearing test at 1000 Hz between standard audiometry and uHear in a soundproof booth. Difference: The standard audiometry value was subtracted from the uHear in a soundproof booth value. Average: The average of the standard audiometry value and uHear in a soundproof booth value. Mean = 9.90 dB. Differences between the uHear in a soundproof booth values and the standard audiometry values were not more than 10 dB in 75 ears (72.12%)
FIGURE 3
FIGURE 3
Bland–Altman plot of the hearing test at 2000 Hz between standard audiometry and uHear in a soundproof booth. Difference: The standard audiometry value was subtracted from the uHear in a soundproof booth value. Average: The average of the standard audiometry value and uHear in a soundproof booth value. Mean = 0.24 dB. Differences between the uHear in a soundproof booth values and the standard audiometry values were not more than 10 dB in 100 ears (96.15%)
FIGURE 4
FIGURE 4
Bland–Altman plot of the hearing test at 4000 Hz between standard audiometry and uHear in a soundproof booth. Difference: The standard audiometry value was subtracted from the uHear in a soundproof booth value. Average: The average of the standard audiometry value and uHear in a soundproof booth value. Mean = 0.63 dB. Differences between the uHear in a soundproof booth values and the standard audiometry values were not more than 10 dB in 89 ears (85.58%).
FIGURE 5
FIGURE 5
Bland–Altman plot of hearing test at 6000 Hz between standard audiometry and uHear in a soundproof booth. Difference: The standard audiometry value was subtracted from the uHear in a soundproof booth value. Average: The average of the standard audiometry value and uHear in a soundproof booth value. Mean = −3.54 dB. Differences between the uHear in a soundproof booth values and the standard audiometry values were not more than 10 dB in 80 ears (76.92%).
FIGURE 6
FIGURE 6
Bland–Altman plot of hearing test at 500 Hz between standard audiometry and uHear in a typical hearing environment. Difference: The standard audiometry value was subtracted from the uHear in a typical hearing environment value. Average: The average of the standard audiometry value and uHear in a typical hearing environment value. Mean = 21.46 dB. Differences between the uHear in a typical hearing environment values and the standard audiometry values were not more than 10 dB in 22 ears (21.15%)
FIGURE 7
FIGURE 7
Bland–Altman plot of hearing test at 1000 Hz between standard audiometry and uHear in a typical hearing environment. Difference: The standard audiometry value was subtracted from the uHear in a typical hearing environment value. Average: The average of the standard audiometry value and uHear in a typical hearing environment value. Mean = 17.67 dB. Differences between the uHear in a typical hearing environment values and the standard audiometry values were not more than 10 dB in 31 ears (29.81%)
FIGURE 8
FIGURE 8
Bland–Altman plot of hearing test at 2000 Hz between standard audiometry and uHear in a typical hearing environment. Difference: The standard audiometry value was subtracted from the uHear in a typical hearing environment value. Average: The average of the standard audiometry value and uHear in a typical hearing environment value. Mean = 5 dB. Differences between the uHear in a typical hearing environment values and the standard audiometry values were not more than 10 dB in 79 ears (75.96%)
FIGURE 9
FIGURE 9
Bland–Altman plot of hearing test at 4000 Hz between standard audiometry and uHear in a typical hearing environment. Difference: The standard audiometry value was subtracted from the uHear in a typical hearing environment value. Average: The average of the standard audiometry value and uHear in a typical hearing environment value. Mean = 1.70 dB. Differences between the uHear in a typical hearing environment values and the standard audiometry values were not more than 10 dB in 88 ears (84.62%)
FIGURE 10
FIGURE 10
Bland–Altman plot of hearing test at 6000 Hz between standard audiometry and uHear in a typical hearing environment. Difference: The standard audiometry value was subtracted from the uHear in a typical hearing environment value. Average: The average of the standard audiometry value and uHear in a typical hearing environment value. Mean = 1.07 dB. Differences between the uHear in a typical hearing environment values and the standard audiometry values were not more than 10 dB in 84 ears (80.77%)
See this image and copyright information in PMC

Similar articles

See all similar articles

References

    1. Mathers C, Smith A, Concha M. Global burden of hearing loss in the year 2000. Global Burden Dis. 2000;18(4):1‐30.
    1. Chadha S, Cieza A. World Health Organization and its initiative for ear and hearing care. Otolaryngol Clin North Am. 2018;51(3):535‐542. doi:10.1016/j.otc.2018.01.002 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Yiengprugsawan V, Hogan A, Harley D, Seubsman SA, Sleigh AC. Epidemiological associations of hearing impairment and health among a national cohort of 87 134 adults in Thailand. Asia Pac J Public Health. 2012;24(6):1013‐1022. doi:10.1177/1010539511408712 - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Prasansuk S. Incidence/prevalence of sensorineural hearing impairment in Thailand and Southeast Asia. Audiology. 2000;39(4):207‐211. - PubMed
    1. Bunnag C, Prasansuk S, Nakorn AN, et al. Ear diseases and hearing in the Thai elderly population. Part II. A one year follow‐up study. J Med Assoc Thai. 2002;85(5):532‐539. - PubMed

LinkOut - more resources