Sahuur Abdullahi Ahmed Sheikh Hassan, Uffe Kock Wiil, Ali Ebrahimi
{"title":"自我管理的基于网络和应用程序的听力测试工具的准确性-系统评价。","authors":"Sahuur Abdullahi Ahmed Sheikh Hassan, Uffe Kock Wiil, Ali Ebrahimi","doi":"10.3390/audiolres15030073","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p><b>Objectives:</b> This systematic review aimed to evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of self-administered web- and app-based tools for audiometric testing compared to pure-tone audiometry (PTA), the clinical gold standard. <b>Methods:</b> Studies were eligible if they involved human participants, evaluated self-administered digital tools for audiometric testing, reported diagnostic accuracy metrics (e.g., sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy), were published between 2014 and 2024, and were written in English. Studies were excluded if they did not compare to PTA, were reviews, or did not assess self-administered tools. MEDLINE, Web of Science, Scopus, and EMBASE were systematically searched throughout November 2024. Study quality was assessed using the QUADAS-2 tool, evaluating four domains: patient selection, index test, reference standard, and flow and timing. Most studies showed some concern for a risk of bias. <b>Results:</b> Twelve studies, including a total of 2453 participants and evaluating 15 applications, met the inclusion criteria. The studies reported wide variability in diagnostic accuracy. Sensitivity ranged from 18% to 100%, specificity from 35.5% to 99.1%, and accuracy from 14% to 97.4%. SHOEBOX and Screenout demonstrated high diagnostic accuracy, while other apps showed inconsistent results across studies and settings. Heterogeneity in definitions of hearing loss, test environments, device and headphone types and a lack of standardized reporting limited comparability. Most studies were conducted in non-soundproof environments, and some had unclear or a high risk of bias. <b>Conclusions:</b> Self-administered audiometric apps and web tools show promise for remote hearing screening but require further validation and methodological standardization. Clinicians should interpret the results cautiously given the current variability in performance.</p>","PeriodicalId":44133,"journal":{"name":"Audiology Research","volume":"15 3","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.1000,"publicationDate":"2025-06-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12189380/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The Accuracy of Self-Administered Web- and App-Based Tools for Audiometric Tests-A Systematic Review.\",\"authors\":\"Sahuur Abdullahi Ahmed Sheikh Hassan, Uffe Kock Wiil, Ali Ebrahimi\",\"doi\":\"10.3390/audiolres15030073\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p><b>Objectives:</b> This systematic review aimed to evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of self-administered web- and app-based tools for audiometric testing compared to pure-tone audiometry (PTA), the clinical gold standard. <b>Methods:</b> Studies were eligible if they involved human participants, evaluated self-administered digital tools for audiometric testing, reported diagnostic accuracy metrics (e.g., sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy), were published between 2014 and 2024, and were written in English. Studies were excluded if they did not compare to PTA, were reviews, or did not assess self-administered tools. MEDLINE, Web of Science, Scopus, and EMBASE were systematically searched throughout November 2024. Study quality was assessed using the QUADAS-2 tool, evaluating four domains: patient selection, index test, reference standard, and flow and timing. Most studies showed some concern for a risk of bias. <b>Results:</b> Twelve studies, including a total of 2453 participants and evaluating 15 applications, met the inclusion criteria. The studies reported wide variability in diagnostic accuracy. Sensitivity ranged from 18% to 100%, specificity from 35.5% to 99.1%, and accuracy from 14% to 97.4%. SHOEBOX and Screenout demonstrated high diagnostic accuracy, while other apps showed inconsistent results across studies and settings. Heterogeneity in definitions of hearing loss, test environments, device and headphone types and a lack of standardized reporting limited comparability. Most studies were conducted in non-soundproof environments, and some had unclear or a high risk of bias. <b>Conclusions:</b> Self-administered audiometric apps and web tools show promise for remote hearing screening but require further validation and methodological standardization. Clinicians should interpret the results cautiously given the current variability in performance.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":44133,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Audiology Research\",\"volume\":\"15 3\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-06-19\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12189380/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Audiology Research\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.3390/audiolres15030073\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"AUDIOLOGY & SPEECH-LANGUAGE PATHOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Audiology Research","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3390/audiolres15030073","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"AUDIOLOGY & SPEECH-LANGUAGE PATHOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
摘要
目的:本系统综述旨在评估自我管理的基于网络和应用程序的听力测试工具与纯音听力测试(PTA)的诊断准确性,纯音听力测试是临床金标准。方法:如果研究涉及人类参与者,评估了用于听力测试的自我管理的数字工具,报告了诊断准确性指标(例如灵敏度、特异性和准确性),并且在2014年至2024年之间发表,并且以英文撰写,则研究符合条件。未与PTA进行比较、未进行评价或未评估自我管理工具的研究被排除。在2024年11月系统地检索了MEDLINE、Web of Science、Scopus和EMBASE。使用QUADAS-2工具评估研究质量,评估四个领域:患者选择、指标测试、参考标准、流程和时间。大多数研究都显示出对偏倚风险的担忧。结果:12项研究共纳入2453名受试者,评估了15份申请,符合纳入标准。这些研究报告了诊断准确性的广泛差异。敏感性为18% ~ 100%,特异性为35.5% ~ 99.1%,准确度为14% ~ 97.4%。SHOEBOX和Screenout显示出很高的诊断准确性,而其他应用程序在不同的研究和设置中显示出不一致的结果。听力损失定义的异质性、测试环境、设备和耳机类型以及缺乏标准化报告限制了可比性。大多数研究都是在非隔音环境中进行的,有些研究存在不明确或高偏倚风险。结论:自我管理的听力测量应用程序和网络工具有望用于远程听力筛查,但需要进一步验证和方法标准化。鉴于目前表现的可变性,临床医生应谨慎解释结果。
The Accuracy of Self-Administered Web- and App-Based Tools for Audiometric Tests-A Systematic Review.
Objectives: This systematic review aimed to evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of self-administered web- and app-based tools for audiometric testing compared to pure-tone audiometry (PTA), the clinical gold standard. Methods: Studies were eligible if they involved human participants, evaluated self-administered digital tools for audiometric testing, reported diagnostic accuracy metrics (e.g., sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy), were published between 2014 and 2024, and were written in English. Studies were excluded if they did not compare to PTA, were reviews, or did not assess self-administered tools. MEDLINE, Web of Science, Scopus, and EMBASE were systematically searched throughout November 2024. Study quality was assessed using the QUADAS-2 tool, evaluating four domains: patient selection, index test, reference standard, and flow and timing. Most studies showed some concern for a risk of bias. Results: Twelve studies, including a total of 2453 participants and evaluating 15 applications, met the inclusion criteria. The studies reported wide variability in diagnostic accuracy. Sensitivity ranged from 18% to 100%, specificity from 35.5% to 99.1%, and accuracy from 14% to 97.4%. SHOEBOX and Screenout demonstrated high diagnostic accuracy, while other apps showed inconsistent results across studies and settings. Heterogeneity in definitions of hearing loss, test environments, device and headphone types and a lack of standardized reporting limited comparability. Most studies were conducted in non-soundproof environments, and some had unclear or a high risk of bias. Conclusions: Self-administered audiometric apps and web tools show promise for remote hearing screening but require further validation and methodological standardization. Clinicians should interpret the results cautiously given the current variability in performance.
期刊介绍:
The mission of Audiology Research is to publish contemporary, ethical, clinically relevant scientific researches related to the basic science and clinical aspects of the auditory and vestibular system and diseases of the ear that can be used by clinicians, scientists and specialists to improve understanding and treatment of patients with audiological and neurotological disorders.