Faheema Mahomed-Asmail1, De Wet Swanepoel, Robert H Eikelboom, Hermanus C Myburgh, James Hall. 1. 1Department of Speech-Language Pathology and Audiology, University of Pretoria, Pretoria, South Africa; 2Ear Science Institute Australia, Subiaco, Western Australia, Australia; 3Ear Sciences Centre, School of Surgery, The University of Western Australia, Nedlands, Western Australia, Australia; 4Department of Electrical, Electronic and Computer Engineering, University of Pretoria, Pretoria, South Africa; and 5George S. Osborne College of Audiology, Salus University, Elkins Park, Pennsylvania, USA.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: The study aimed to determine the validity of a smartphone hearing screening technology (hearScreen™) compared with conventional screening audiometry in terms of (1) sensitivity and specificity, (2) referral rate, and (3) test time. DESIGN: One thousand and seventy school-age children in grades 1 to 3 (8 ± 1.1 average years) were recruited from five public schools. Children were screened twice, once using conventional audiometry and once with the smartphone hearing screening. Screening was conducted in a counterbalanced sequence, alternating initial screen between conventional or smartphone hearing screening. RESULTS: No statistically significant difference in performance between techniques was noted, with smartphone screening demonstrating equivalent sensitivity (75.0%) and specificity (98.5%) to conventional screening audiometry. While referral rates were lower with the smartphone screening (3.2 vs. 4.6%), it was not significantly different (p > 0.05). Smartphone screening (hearScreen™) was 12.3% faster than conventional screening. CONCLUSION: Smartphone hearing screening using the hearScreen™ application is accurate and time efficient.
OBJECTIVES: The study aimed to determine the validity of a smartphone hearing screening technology (hearScreen™) compared with conventional screening audiometry in terms of (1) sensitivity and specificity, (2) referral rate, and (3) test time. DESIGN: One thousand and seventy school-age children in grades 1 to 3 (8 ± 1.1 average years) were recruited from five public schools. Children were screened twice, once using conventional audiometry and once with the smartphone hearing screening. Screening was conducted in a counterbalanced sequence, alternating initial screen between conventional or smartphone hearing screening. RESULTS: No statistically significant difference in performance between techniques was noted, with smartphone screening demonstrating equivalent sensitivity (75.0%) and specificity (98.5%) to conventional screening audiometry. While referral rates were lower with the smartphone screening (3.2 vs. 4.6%), it was not significantly different (p > 0.05). Smartphone screening (hearScreen™) was 12.3% faster than conventional screening. CONCLUSION: Smartphone hearing screening using the hearScreen™ application is accurate and time efficient.
Authors: Lina Motlagh Zadeh; Noah H Silbert; Katherine Sternasty; De Wet Swanepoel; Lisa L Hunter; David R Moore Journal: Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A Date: 2019-11-04 Impact factor: 11.205
Authors: Obioha C Ukoumunne; Chris Hyde; Mara Ozolins; Zhivko Zhelev; Sam Errington; Rod S Taylor; Claire Benton; Joanne Moody; Laura Cocking; Julian Watson; Heather Fortnum Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2017-07-11 Impact factor: 2.692
Authors: Luke Hunt; Wakisa Mulwafu; Victoria Knott; Chifundo B Ndamala; Andrew W Naunje; Sam Dewhurst; Andrew Hall; Kevin Mortimer Journal: PLoS One Date: 2017-12-21 Impact factor: 3.240