Evaluating the Reliability of 'AudiClick': A Click-Based Mobile App for Hearing Loss

Document Type : Original

Authors

Department of Otorhinolaryngology, University of Malaya, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia.

10.22038/ijorl.2024.77520.3596

Abstract

Introduction:
To develop and validate a click-based mobile “Audiclick” app employing click noises for hearing assessments.
Materials and Methods:
This prospective comparative study compares the “AudiClick” app as a hearing screening tool to pure tone audiometry. Participants listened to sounds through wired earbud headphones that were connected to an Android or iOS device.
Results:
The study involved 110 participants aged between 18 to 80 years old. All degrees of hearing loss severity corresponds to pure tone average (p < 0.01) results. The app was also found to be effective at identifying hearing loss (80-99% sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, and accuracy). Test-retest reliability had also shown excellent ICC scores of 0.93.
Conclusions:
This study demonstrates that a mobile app using click sounds can be as efficient as pure tone audiometry for field screenings, while being more cost-effective and easier to develop.

Keywords

Main Subjects

References

  1. Olusanya BO, Davis AC, Hoffman HJ. Hearing loss: rising prevalence and impact. Bull World Health Organ. 2019;97(10):646-A.
  2. O'Donovan J, Verkerk M, Winters N, Chadha S, Bhutta MF. The role of community health workers in addressing the global burden of ear disease and hearing loss: a systematic scoping review of the literature. BMJ Glob Health. 2019;4(2): e001141.
  3. Huddle MG, Goman AM, Kernizan FC, Foley DM, Price C, Frick KD, et al. The Economic Impact of Adult Hearing Loss: A Systematic Review. JAMA Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2017; 143(10):1040-8.
  4. Boi R, Racca L, Cavallero A, Carpaneto V, Racca M, Dall' Acqua F, et al. Hearing loss and depressive symptoms in elderly patients. Geriatr Gerontol Int. 2012;12(3):440-5.
  5. Yueh B, Shapiro N, MacLean CH, Shekelle PG. Screening and management of adult hearing loss in primary care: scientific review. JAMA. 2003; 289(15): 1976-85.
  6. Lin FR, Hazzard WR, Blazer DG. Priorities for Improving Hearing Health Care for Adults: A Report From the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. JAMA. 2016; 316(8): 819-20.
  7. Mosa AS, Yoo I, Sheets L. A systematic review of healthcare applications for smartphones. BMC Med Inform Decis Mak. 2012; 12:67.
  8. Kelly EA, Stadler ME, Nelson S, Runge CL, Friedland DR. Tablet-based Screening for Hearing Loss: Feasibility of Testing in Nonspecialty Locations. Otol Neurotol. 2018;39(4):410-6.
  9. Louw C, Swanepoel DW, Eikelboom RH, Myburgh HC. Smartphone-Based Hearing Screening at Primary Health Care Clinics. Ear and Hearing. 2017;38(2):e93-e100.
  10. Kam ACS, Fu CHT. Screening for hearing loss in the Hong Kong Cantonese-speaking elderly using tablet-based pure-tone and word-in-noise test. Int J Audiol. 2020;59(4):301-9.
  11. Saliba J, Al-Reefi M, Carriere JS, Verma N, Provencal C, Rappaport JM. Accuracy of Mobile-Based Audiometry in the Evaluation of Hearing Loss in Quiet and Noisy Environments. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2017;156(4):706-11.
  12. Irace AL, Sharma RK, Reed NS, Golub JS.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Smartphone-Based Applications to Detect Hearing Loss: A Review of Current Technology. J Am Geriatr Soc. 2021;69(2):307-16.

  1. Rhebergen KS, van Esch TE, Dreschler WA. Measuring Temporal Resolution (Release of Masking) with a Hughson-Westlake Up-Down Instead of a Bekesy-Tracking Procedure. J Am Acad Audiol. 2015;26(6):563-71.

14.                DIN EN 60645-1:2018-08 Electroacoustics - Audiometric equipment - Part 1: Equipment for pure-tone and speech audiometry (IEC 60645-1:2017); German version EN 60645-1:2017

  1. Beck RM, Ramos BF, Grasel SS, Ramos HF, Moraes MF, Almeida ER, et al. Comparative study between pure tone audiometry and auditory steady-state responses in normal hearing subjects. Braz J Otorhinolaryngol. 2014; 80:35-40. Brazilian Journal of Otorhinolaryngology. 2014;80(1):35-40.
  2. Trosman SJ, Geelan-Hansen K, Anne S. A Charge Comparison of Audiometric Testing in the Pediatric Population. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2016;154(6):1068-72.
  3. Linssen AM, Anteunis LJ, Joore MA. The Cost-Effectiveness of Different Hearing Screening Strategies for 50- to 70-Year-Old Adults: A Markov Model. Value Health. 2015;18(5):560-9.
  4. Huang SP, McKinzie CJ, Tak CR. Cost-effectiveness of implementing routine hearing screening using a tablet audiometer for pediatric cystic fibrosis patients receiving high-dose IV aminoglycosides. J Manag Care Spec Pharm. 2021; 27(2):157-65.
  5. Amirullah NA, Rahmat S, Dzulkarnain AAA, Maamor N, Jamaludin MKA, Che Azemin MZ. Calibrating different sounds for sound therapy: A general guide. Med J Malaysia. 2022;77(1):12-9.
  6. Walker JJ, Cleveland LM, Davis JL, Seales JS. Audiometry screening and interpretation. Am Fam Physician. 2013;87(1):41-7.
  7. Cunha M, Lopes MDS, Meira TC, Corona AP. Hearing screening using the uHear smartphone-based app: reproducibility of results from two response modes. Codas. 2023;35(2):e20210143.
  8. Barczik J, Serpanos YC. Accuracy of Smartphone Self-Hearing Test Applications Across Frequencies and Earphone Styles in Adults. Am J Audiol. 2018;27(4):570-80.
Iranian Journal of Otorhinolaryngology
Volume 36, Issue 4
July and August 2024
Pages 551-558

Files

Share

How to cite

Statistics