Omer J Ungar1, Ophir Handzel1, Oren Cavel1, Yahav Oron2. 1. Department of Otolaryngology Head and Neck Surgery and Maxillofacial Surgery, Tel Aviv Sourasky Medical Center, Sackler School of Medicine, Tel Aviv University, Tel Aviv, Israel. 2. Department of Otolaryngology Head and Neck Surgery and Maxillofacial Surgery, Tel Aviv Sourasky Medical Center, Sackler School of Medicine, Tel Aviv University, Tel Aviv, Israel, oron.yahav@gmail.com.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The aim of this paper was to compare the accuracy of a smartphone-based Weber test (SPWT) with the traditional tuning fork Weber test (TFWT) in identifying and differentiating between sensorineural hearing loss (SNHL) and conductive hearing loss (CHL). STUDY DESIGN: We conducted a prospective, noncontrolled clinical study. METHODS: Sixty patients referred to the emergency department due to unilateral hearing loss (HL) were enrolled. They were asked to press a single uncovered smartphone on their forehead and conduct a Weber test by means of the smartphone's vibration application. The results were compared to the TFWT. RESULTS: Twenty-six (43%) patients were diagnosed with a SNHL, and 34 (57%) with a CHL. The SPWT was in agreement with the TFWT (at a frequency of 512 Hz) in 55 (92%) patients. The sensitivity and specificity of the TFWT were 84.6 and 94.1%, respectively. The sensitivity and specificity of the SPWT were 76.9 and 97.1%, respectively. CONCLUSION: SPWT can serve as an auxiliary diagnostic tool in the absence of a 512-Hz tuning fork to assist in the identification of the type of HL and to potentially hasten the diagnosis and provision of treatment when indicated.
OBJECTIVE: The aim of this paper was to compare the accuracy of a smartphone-based Weber test (SPWT) with the traditional tuning fork Weber test (TFWT) in identifying and differentiating between sensorineural hearing loss (SNHL) and conductive hearing loss (CHL). STUDY DESIGN: We conducted a prospective, noncontrolled clinical study. METHODS: Sixty patients referred to the emergency department due to unilateral hearing loss (HL) were enrolled. They were asked to press a single uncovered smartphone on their forehead and conduct a Weber test by means of the smartphone's vibration application. The results were compared to the TFWT. RESULTS: Twenty-six (43%) patients were diagnosed with a SNHL, and 34 (57%) with a CHL. The SPWT was in agreement with the TFWT (at a frequency of 512 Hz) in 55 (92%) patients. The sensitivity and specificity of the TFWT were 84.6 and 94.1%, respectively. The sensitivity and specificity of the SPWT were 76.9 and 97.1%, respectively. CONCLUSION: SPWT can serve as an auxiliary diagnostic tool in the absence of a 512-Hz tuning fork to assist in the identification of the type of HL and to potentially hasten the diagnosis and provision of treatment when indicated.