Literature DB >> 27206551

Clinical validation of automated audiometry with continuous noise-monitoring in a clinically heterogeneous population outside a sound-treated environment.

Christopher G Brennan-Jones1,2, Robert H Eikelboom1,2,3, De Wet Swanepoel1,2,3, Peter L Friedland1,2,4,5, Marcus D Atlas1,2,5.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: Examine the accuracy of automated audiometry in a clinically heterogeneous population of adults using the KUDUwave automated audiometer.
DESIGN: Prospective accuracy study. Manual audiometry was performed in a sound-treated room and automated audiometry was not conducted in a sound-treated environment. STUDY SAMPLE: 42 consecutively recruited participants from a tertiary otolaryngology department in Western Australia.
RESULTS: Absolute mean differences ranged between 5.12-9.68 dB (air-conduction) and 8.26-15 dB (bone-conduction). A total of 86.5% of manual and automated 4FAs were within 10 dB (i.e. ±5 dB); 94.8% were within 15 dB. However, there were significant (p < 0.05) differences between automated and manual audiometry at 250, 500, 1000, and 2000 Hz (air-conduction) and 500 and 1000 Hz (bone-conduction). The effect of age (≥55 years) on accuracy (p = 0.014) was not significant on linear regression (p > 0.05; R(2) =( ) 0.11). The presence of a hearing loss (better ear ≥26 dB) did not significantly affect accuracy (p = 0.604; air-conduction), (p = 0.218; bone-conduction).
CONCLUSIONS: This study provides clinical validation of automated audiometry using the KUDUwave in a clinically heterogeneous population, without the use of a sound-treated environment. Whilst threshold variations were statistically significant, future research is needed to ascertain the clinical significance of such variation.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Automated audiometry; KUDUwave; audiometry; hearing loss; teleaudiology

Mesh:

Year:  2016        PMID: 27206551     DOI: 10.1080/14992027.2016.1178858

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Int J Audiol        ISSN: 1499-2027            Impact factor:   2.117


  6 in total

1.  Going wireless and booth-less for hearing testing in industry.

Authors:  Deanna K Meinke; Jesse A Norris; Brendan P Flynn; Odile H Clavier
Journal:  Int J Audiol       Date:  2016-12-15       Impact factor: 2.117

2.  Cisplatin-associated ototoxicity: perspectives from a single institution cervical cancer cohort and implications for developing a locally responsive monitoring programme in a public healthcare setting.

Authors:  Jessica Paken; Cyril D Govender; Mershen Pillay; Vikash Sewram
Journal:  BMC Health Serv Res       Date:  2022-06-18       Impact factor: 2.908

3.  Adult validation of a self-administered tablet audiometer.

Authors:  Mark Bastianelli; Amy E Mark; Arran McAfee; David Schramm; Renée Lefrançois; Matthew Bromwich
Journal:  J Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg       Date:  2019-11-07

Review 4.  Digital Approaches to Automated and Machine Learning Assessments of Hearing: Scoping Review.

Authors:  Jan-Willem Wasmann; Leontien Pragt; Robert Eikelboom; De Wet Swanepoel
Journal:  J Med Internet Res       Date:  2022-02-02       Impact factor: 5.428

5.  Validity of automated audiometry for hearing examination in patients with multidrug-resistant tuberculosis.

Authors:  Nyilo Purnami; Rian W Palandeng; Soedarsono -; Dhany Arifianto; In Seok Moon
Journal:  F1000Res       Date:  2021-12-14

Review 6.  Automated Audiometry: A Review of the Implementation and Evaluation Methods.

Authors:  Hassan Shojaeemend; Haleh Ayatollahi
Journal:  Healthc Inform Res       Date:  2018-10-31
  6 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.