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

Detalhes bibliográficos
Autor(a) principal: Melo,Inara Maria Monteiro
Data de Publicação: 2022
Outros Autores: Silva,Aline Roberta Xavier, Camargo,Rodolpho, Cavalcanti,Hannalice Gottschalk, Ferrari,Deborah Viviane, Taveira,Karinna Veríssimo Meira, Balen,Sheila Andreoli
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