• Home
  • Practice Focus
    • Facial Plastic/Reconstructive
    • Head and Neck
    • Laryngology
    • Otology/Neurotology
    • Pediatric
    • Rhinology
    • Sleep Medicine
    • How I Do It
    • TRIO Best Practices
  • Business of Medicine
    • Health Policy
    • Legal Matters
    • Practice Management
    • Technology
    • AI
  • Literature Reviews
    • Facial Plastic/Reconstructive
    • Head and Neck
    • Laryngology
    • Otology/Neurotology
    • Pediatric
    • Rhinology
    • Sleep Medicine
  • Career
    • Medical Education
    • Professional Development
    • Resident Focus
  • ENT Perspectives
    • ENT Expressions
    • Everyday Ethics
    • From TRIO
    • The Great Debate
    • Letter From the Editor
    • Rx: Wellness
    • The Voice
    • Viewpoint
    • SUO Corner
  • TRIO Resources
    • Triological Society
    • The Laryngoscope
    • Laryngoscope Investigative Otolaryngology
    • TRIO Combined Sections Meetings
    • COSM
    • Related Otolaryngology Events
  • Home
  • Practice Focus
    • Facial Plastic/Reconstructive
    • Head and Neck
    • Laryngology
    • Otology/Neurotology
    • Pediatric
    • Rhinology
    • Sleep Medicine
    • How I Do It
    • TRIO Best Practices
  • Business of Medicine
    • Health Policy
    • Legal Matters
    • Practice Management
    • Technology
    • AI
  • Literature Reviews
    • Facial Plastic/Reconstructive
    • Head and Neck
    • Laryngology
    • Otology/Neurotology
    • Pediatric
    • Rhinology
    • Sleep Medicine
  • Career
    • Medical Education
    • Professional Development
    • Resident Focus
  • ENT Perspectives
    • ENT Expressions
    • Everyday Ethics
    • From TRIO
    • The Great Debate
    • Letter From the Editor
    • Rx: Wellness
    • The Voice
    • Viewpoint
    • SUO Corner
  • TRIO Resources
    • Triological Society
    • The Laryngoscope
    • Laryngoscope Investigative Otolaryngology
    • TRIO Combined Sections Meetings
    • COSM
    • Related Otolaryngology Events
  • Search

Commercial-Grade, Application-Based Hearing Assessment Strongly Correlates with Traditional Audiometry

July 11, 2024

  • Tweet
  • Email a link to a friend (Opens in new window) Email
Print-Friendly Version

CLINICAL QUESTION

Given the lack of consensus on the most accurate remote hearing test application, what can be learned in evaluating the correlation of commercial and consumer-based audiometric applications with traditional audiometry, both in patients with normal hearing and in those with hearing loss?

You Might Also Like

  • Routine Audiometry Correlate Strongly With Formal CI Candidacy Evaluation
  • Dehiscence Size in SSCD Correlates with Air-Bone Gap Size
  • How To: Using New iPhone Application for Voice Quality Assessment Based on the GRBAS Scale
  • Higher Prevalence of Hearing Loss Among Cancer Survivors
Explore This Issue
July 2024

BOTTOM LINE

Commercial-grade, app-based pure tone audiometry demonstrates an overall strong correlation and accuracy with traditional audiometry, but it is not intended to replace an evaluation performed in a controlled environment with calibrated equipment and a skillfully trained clinician.

BACKGROUND: Many rehabilitation services can be provided remotely for patients with hearing aids and cochlear implants. Promising, increasingly available, and designed to mimic traditional protocols used by audiologists, application-based hearing assessment programs on electronic devices can provide a self-administered screening of hearing; however, their validity and accuracy remain a concern.

STUDY DESIGN: Prospective study.

SETTING: Department of Otolaryngology–Head and Neck Surgery, University of Kentucky Medical Center, Lexington, Ky.

SYNOPSIS: Researchers placed 39 adults into two cohorts: normal hearing (13 females, eight males; average age 31.4 years) and hearing loss (nine females, nine males; average age 65.7 years). Participants completed a traditional audiogram, two consumer app-based tests, one commercial app-based test, and a Hearing Handicap Inventory screening version (HHI-S). Results revealed a significant difference in correlation strength between the commercial and consumer iOS applications in normal ears, for which the commercial hearing test app had a statistically significant pure tone average correlation in both ears with traditional audiometry. Both consumer and commercial apps had statistically significant correlations in both ears in patients with hearing loss. For accuracy within 10 dB of the pure tone average of the traditional audiogram of all tested ears, the commercial app-based test was accurate in 94% of all ears; the consumer app-based tests fell between 14% and 36%. The HHI-S indicated no hearing impairment in 95% of those with normal hearing and hearing impairment in 89% of those with hearing loss. Authors note that the widespread use of accurate and validated audiometric applications could increase access to hearing healthcare, especially for patients in remote locations. Study limitations include its small set of hearing test applications.

CITATION: Adkins D, Phuong A, Shinn J, et al. Tools for telehealth: a correlational analysis of app-based hearing testing. Laryngoscope Investig Otolarygol. 2024;9:e1255.

Filed Under: Literature Reviews, Otology/Neurotology, Otology/Neurotology, Practice Focus, Tech Talk, Technology Tagged With: app-based audiometryIssue: July 2024

You Might Also Like:

  • Routine Audiometry Correlate Strongly With Formal CI Candidacy Evaluation
  • Dehiscence Size in SSCD Correlates with Air-Bone Gap Size
  • How To: Using New iPhone Application for Voice Quality Assessment Based on the GRBAS Scale
  • Higher Prevalence of Hearing Loss Among Cancer Survivors

The Triological SocietyENTtoday is a publication of The Triological Society.

Polls

More and more medical trainees are taking dedicated, prolonged gap years. Did you?

View Results

Loading ... Loading ...
  • Polls Archive

Top Articles for Residents

  • Is the SLOR in Otolaryngology Residency Applications Contributing to Rural Disparities?
  • Applications Open for Resident Members of the ENTtoday Editorial Board
  • A Resident’s View of AI in Otolaryngology
  • Call for Resident Bowl Questions
  • Resident Pearls: Pediatric Otolaryngologists Share Tips for Safer, Smarter Tonsillectomies
  • Popular this Week
  • Most Popular
  • Most Recent
    • Office Laryngoscopy Is Not Aerosol Generating When Evaluated by Optical Particle Sizer
    • Some Laryngopharyngeal Reflux Resists PPI Treatment
    • Empty Nose Syndrome: Physiological, Psychological, or Perhaps a Little of Both?
    • Top 10 LARY and LIO Articles of 2024
    • Rating Laryngopharyngeal Reflux Severity: How Do Two Common Instruments Compare?
    • The Dramatic Rise in Tongue Tie and Lip Tie Treatment
    • Rating Laryngopharyngeal Reflux Severity: How Do Two Common Instruments Compare?
    • Is Middle Ear Pressure Affected by Continuous Positive Airway Pressure Use?
    • Otolaryngologists Are Still Debating the Effectiveness of Tongue Tie Treatment
    • Keeping Watch for Skin Cancers on the Head and Neck
    • Short-Term Efficacy of Biologics in Recalcitrant AFRS: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
    • The Devaluation of Otolaryngology: An Evaluation of CMS’s Involvement in Physician Reimbursement
    • Embolized Middle Meningeal Artery as a Surgical Landmark in Infratemporal Fossa
    • Lord of the (Magnetic) Rings: Rigid Bronchoscopy for Aspirated Magnetic Foreign Bodies in Tertiary Bronchi
    • What Otolaryngologists Can Learn from Athletes

Follow Us

  • Contact Us
  • About Us
  • Advertise
  • The Triological Society
  • The Laryngoscope
  • Laryngoscope Investigative Otolaryngology
  • Privacy Policy
  • Terms of Use
  • Cookies

Wiley

Copyright © 2026 by John Wiley & Sons, Inc. All rights reserved, including rights for text and data mining and training of artificial technologies or similar technologies. ISSN 1559-4939