Healthcare Informatics Research

Korean Society of Medical Infomatics (대한의료정보학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Automated Audiometry: A Review of the Implementation and Evaluation Methods

  • Shojaeemend, Hassan (Department of Health Information Management, School of Health Management and Information Sciences, Iran University of Medical Sciences) ;
  • Ayatollahi, Haleh (Department of Health Information Management, School of Health Management and Information Sciences, Iran University of Medical Sciences)
  • Received : 2018.05.16
  • Accepted : 2018.10.04
  • Published : 2018.10.31
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

Objectives: Automated audiometry provides an opportunity to do audiometry when there is no direct access to a clinical audiologist. This approach will help to use hearing services and resources efficiently. The purpose of this study was to review studies related to automated audiometry by focusing on the implementation of an audiometer, the use of transducers and evaluation methods. Methods: This review study was conducted in 2017. The papers related to the design and implementation of automated audiometry were searched in the following databases: Science Direct, Web of Science, PubMed, and Scopus. The time frame for the papers was between January 1, 2010 and August 31, 2017. Initially, 143 papers were found, and after screening, the number of papers was reduced to 16. Results: The findings showed that the implementation methods were categorized into the use of software (7 papers), hardware (3 papers) and smartphones/tablets (6 papers). The used transducers were a variety of earphones and bone vibrators. Different evaluation methods were used to evaluate the accuracy and the reliability of the diagnoses. However, in most studies, no significant difference was found between automated and traditional audiometry. Conclusions: It seems that automated audiometry produces the same results compared with traditional audiometry. However, the main advantages of this method; namely, saving costs and increased accessibility to hearing services, can lead to a faster diagnosis of hearing impairment, especially in poor areas.

Keywords

References

  1. Mahomed F, Swanepoel de W, Eikelboom RH, Soer M. Validity of automated threshold audiometry: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Ear Hear 2013;34(6):745-52. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.aud.0000436255.53747.a4
  2. Eikelboom RH, Swanepoel de W, Motakef S, Upson GS. Clinical validation of the AMTAS automated audiometer. Int J Audiol 2013;52(5):342-9. https://doi.org/10.3109/14992027.2013.769065
  3. Sandstrom J, Swanepoel de W, Carel Myburgh H, Laurent C. Smartphone threshold audiometry in underserved primary health-care contexts. Int J Audiol 2016;55(4):232-8. https://doi.org/10.3109/14992027.2015.1124294
  4. Margolis RH, Morgan DE. Automated pure-tone audiometry: an analysis of capacity, need, and benefit. Am J Audiol 2008;17(2):109-13. https://doi.org/10.1044/1059-0889(2008/07-0047)
  5. Whitton JP, Hancock KE, Shannon JM, Polley DB. Validation of a self-administered audiometry application: an equivalence study. Laryngoscope 2016;126(10):2382-8. https://doi.org/10.1002/lary.25988
  6. Munro KJ. Audiology [Internet]. London: Encyclopaedia Britannica; 2016 [cited at 2018 Oct 1]. Available from: https://www.britannica.com/topic/audiology.
  7. Margolis RH, Moore BC. AMTAS: automated method for testing auditory sensitivity. III. Sensorineural hearing loss and air-bone gaps. Int J Audiol 2011;50(7):440-7. https://doi.org/10.3109/14992027.2011.575085
  8. Margolis RH, Glasberg BR, Creeke S, Moore BC. AMTAS: automated method for testing auditory sensitivity: validation studies. Int J Audiol 2010;49(3):185-94. https://doi.org/10.3109/14992020903092608
  9. Margolis RH, Frisina R, Walton JP. AMTAS: automated method for testing auditory sensitivity. II. Air conduction audiograms in children and adults. Int J Audiol 2011;50(7):434-9. https://doi.org/10.3109/14992027.2011.553206
  10. Margolis RH, Killion MC, Bratt GW, Saly GL. Validation of the Home Hearing Test. J Am Acad Audiol 2016;27(5):416-20. https://doi.org/10.3766/jaaa.15102
  11. Masalski M, Krecicki T. Self-test web-based pure-tone audiometry: validity evaluation and measurement error analysis. J Med Internet Res 2013;15(4):e71. https://doi.org/10.2196/jmir.2222
  12. Yao J, Wan Y, Givens GD. Using web services to realize remote hearing assessment. J Clin Monit Comput 2010;24(1):41-50. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10877-009-9208-6
  13. Swanepoel de W, Biagio L. Validity of diagnostic computer-based air and forehead bone conduction audiometry. J Occup Environ Hyg 2011;8(4):210-4. https://doi.org/10.1080/15459624.2011.559417
  14. Brennan-Jones CG, Eikelboom RH, Swanepoel de W, Friedland PL, Atlas MD. Clinical validation of automated audiometry with continuous noise-monitoring in a clinically heterogeneous population outside a soundtreated environment. Int J Audiol 2016;55(9):507-13. https://doi.org/10.1080/14992027.2016.1178858
  15. Swanepoel de W, Mngemane S, Molemong S, Mkwanazi H, Tutshini S. Hearing assessment-reliability, accuracy, and efficiency of automated audiometry. Telemed J E Health 2010;16(5):557-63. https://doi.org/10.1089/tmj.2009.0143
  16. Meinke DK, Norris JA, Flynn BP, Clavier OH. Going wireless and booth-less for hearing testing in industry. Int J Audiol 2017;56(sup1):41-51. https://doi.org/10.1080/14992027.2016.1261189
  17. van Tonder J, Swanepoel W, Mahomed-Asmail F, Myburgh H, Eikelboom RH. Automated smartphone threshold audiometry: validity and time efficiency. J Am Acad Audiol 2017;28(3):200-8. https://doi.org/10.3766/jaaa.16002
  18. Khoza-Shangase K, Kassner L. Automated screening audiometry in the digital age: exploring uHear and its use in a resource-stricken developing country. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 2013;29(1):42-7. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0266462312000761
  19. Foulad A, Bui P, Djalilian H. Automated audiometry using apple iOS-based application technology. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2013;149(5):700-6. https://doi.org/10.1177/0194599813501461
  20. Voss SE, Herrmann BS. How does the sound pressure generated by circumaural, supra-aural, and insert earphones differ for adult and infant ears? Ear Hear 2005;26(6):636-50. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.aud.0000189717.83661.57
  21. Tsai V, Ostroff J, Korman M, Chen JM. Bone-conduction hearing and the occlusion effect in otosclerosis and normal controls. Otol Neurotol 2005;26(6):1138-42. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.mao.0000179996.82402.e0
  22. Margolis RH, Saly GL, Le C, Laurence J. Qualind: a method for assessing the accuracy of automated tests. J Am Acad Audiol 2007;18(1):78-89. https://doi.org/10.3766/jaaa.18.1.7
  23. Brennan-Jones CG, Eikelboom RH, Swanepoel W. Diagnosis of hearing loss using automated audiometry in an asynchronous telehealth model: a pilot accuracy study. J Telemed Telecare 2017;23(2):256-62. https://doi.org/10.1177/1357633X16641552
  24. Xing Y, Fu Z, Wu X, Chen J. Evaluation of Apple iOSbased automated audiometry. Proceedings of the 22nd International Congress on Acoustics; 2016 Sep 5-9; Buenos Aires, Argentina.

Cited by

  1. Validity of automated audiometry for hearing examination in patients with multidrug-resistant tuberculosis vol.10, pp.None, 2018, https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.75090.1