Accuracy of automated and non-audiologist-operated audiometry compared to gold-standard testing.

Abstract

Objective: This study compared the accuracy of automated user-operated and manual non-audiologist driven audiometry, two potential alternatives for test settings with limited audiologist resources. The accuracy was investigated by assessing the two test methods with gold-standard manual audiometry conducted by trained audiologists.

Design: This comparative study was conducted in a clinical setting. The audiometry conducted by non-audiologist operators took place at the participants' local Ear, Nose, and Throat specialists. Both the user-operated and gold-standard audiometry were conducted on the same day at Odense University Hospital, approximately one month after the initial assessment using the non-audiologist driven audiometry.

Study sample: 221 adults (median age of 69 years) referred for hearing-aid treatment.

Results: Both test methods showed statistically significant differences from the gold standard, but the user-operated audiometry demonstrated closer agreement at all tested frequencies. Across frequencies, user-operated audiometry differed by -0.1 dB (95% CI -0.9 to 0.8) to 2.6 dB (95% CI 1.7-3.5), while non-audiologist driven audiometry differed by 6.2 dB (95% CI 5.5-6.9) to 11.1 dB (95% CI 10.0-12.3).

Conclusion: The accuracy of automated user-operated audiometry was within general measurement uncertainty for gold-standard audiometry, whereas the manual non-audiologist driven audiometry may introduce additional variability.