Accuracy of smartphone-based hearing screening tests: a systematic review
Autor(a) principal: | |
---|---|
Data de Publicação: | 2022 |
Outros Autores: | , , , , , |
Tipo de documento: | Artigo |
Idioma: | eng |
Título da fonte: | CoDAS |
Texto Completo: | http://old.scielo.br/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S2317-17822022000300602 |
Resumo: | ABSTRACT 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. |
id |
SBFA-1_975b6c1d4f8229c3febd4a8bb61ae02c |
---|---|
oai_identifier_str |
oai:scielo:S2317-17822022000300602 |
network_acronym_str |
SBFA-1 |
network_name_str |
CoDAS |
repository_id_str |
|
spelling |
Accuracy of smartphone-based hearing screening tests: a systematic reviewAudiologyHearing LossSmartphoneHearing TestMass ScreeningPublic HealthABSTRACT 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.Sociedade Brasileira de Fonoaudiologia2022-01-01info:eu-repo/semantics/articleinfo:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersiontext/htmlhttp://old.scielo.br/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S2317-17822022000300602CoDAS v.34 n.3 2022reponame:CoDASinstname:Sociedade Brasileira de Fonoaudiologia (SBFA)instacron:SBFA10.1590/2317-1782/20212020380info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccessMelo,Inara Maria MonteiroSilva,Aline Roberta XavierCamargo,RodolphoCavalcanti,Hannalice GottschalkFerrari,Deborah VivianeTaveira,Karinna Veríssimo MeiraBalen,Sheila Andreolieng2022-02-21T00:00:00Zoai:scielo:S2317-17822022000300602Revistahttps://www.codas.org.br/ONGhttps://old.scielo.br/oai/scielo-oai.phpcodas@editoracubo.com.br||revista@codas.org.br2317-17822317-1782opendoar:2022-02-21T00:00CoDAS - Sociedade Brasileira de Fonoaudiologia (SBFA)false |
dc.title.none.fl_str_mv |
Accuracy of smartphone-based hearing screening tests: a systematic review |
title |
Accuracy of smartphone-based hearing screening tests: a systematic review |
spellingShingle |
Accuracy of smartphone-based hearing screening tests: a systematic review Melo,Inara Maria Monteiro Audiology Hearing Loss Smartphone Hearing Test Mass Screening Public Health |
title_short |
Accuracy of smartphone-based hearing screening tests: a systematic review |
title_full |
Accuracy of smartphone-based hearing screening tests: a systematic review |
title_fullStr |
Accuracy of smartphone-based hearing screening tests: a systematic review |
title_full_unstemmed |
Accuracy of smartphone-based hearing screening tests: a systematic review |
title_sort |
Accuracy of smartphone-based hearing screening tests: a systematic review |
author |
Melo,Inara Maria Monteiro |
author_facet |
Melo,Inara Maria Monteiro Silva,Aline Roberta Xavier Camargo,Rodolpho Cavalcanti,Hannalice Gottschalk Ferrari,Deborah Viviane Taveira,Karinna Veríssimo Meira Balen,Sheila Andreoli |
author_role |
author |
author2 |
Silva,Aline Roberta Xavier Camargo,Rodolpho Cavalcanti,Hannalice Gottschalk Ferrari,Deborah Viviane Taveira,Karinna Veríssimo Meira Balen,Sheila Andreoli |
author2_role |
author author author author author author |
dc.contributor.author.fl_str_mv |
Melo,Inara Maria Monteiro Silva,Aline Roberta Xavier Camargo,Rodolpho Cavalcanti,Hannalice Gottschalk Ferrari,Deborah Viviane Taveira,Karinna Veríssimo Meira Balen,Sheila Andreoli |
dc.subject.por.fl_str_mv |
Audiology Hearing Loss Smartphone Hearing Test Mass Screening Public Health |
topic |
Audiology Hearing Loss Smartphone Hearing Test Mass Screening Public Health |
description |
ABSTRACT 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. |
publishDate |
2022 |
dc.date.none.fl_str_mv |
2022-01-01 |
dc.type.driver.fl_str_mv |
info:eu-repo/semantics/article |
dc.type.status.fl_str_mv |
info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersion |
format |
article |
status_str |
publishedVersion |
dc.identifier.uri.fl_str_mv |
http://old.scielo.br/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S2317-17822022000300602 |
url |
http://old.scielo.br/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S2317-17822022000300602 |
dc.language.iso.fl_str_mv |
eng |
language |
eng |
dc.relation.none.fl_str_mv |
10.1590/2317-1782/20212020380 |
dc.rights.driver.fl_str_mv |
info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess |
eu_rights_str_mv |
openAccess |
dc.format.none.fl_str_mv |
text/html |
dc.publisher.none.fl_str_mv |
Sociedade Brasileira de Fonoaudiologia |
publisher.none.fl_str_mv |
Sociedade Brasileira de Fonoaudiologia |
dc.source.none.fl_str_mv |
CoDAS v.34 n.3 2022 reponame:CoDAS instname:Sociedade Brasileira de Fonoaudiologia (SBFA) instacron:SBFA |
instname_str |
Sociedade Brasileira de Fonoaudiologia (SBFA) |
instacron_str |
SBFA |
institution |
SBFA |
reponame_str |
CoDAS |
collection |
CoDAS |
repository.name.fl_str_mv |
CoDAS - Sociedade Brasileira de Fonoaudiologia (SBFA) |
repository.mail.fl_str_mv |
codas@editoracubo.com.br||revista@codas.org.br |
_version_ |
1752122443696177152 |