Audiometry in General Practice: Validation of a Pragmatic Pure-tone Audiometry Method

Abstract

The aim of this study was to validate the results of diagnostic pure-tone audiometry performed in a typical practice setting by comparing with test results obtained in a standardized audiological setting in accordance with the ISO standards. In a single-blinded crossover design, 119 persons were tested (0.25-8 kHz) in both settings. The mean deviations as a function of frequency were in the order of less than 2 dB (0.5-4 kHz) and otherwise up to 4 dB; the practice setting representing the poorer thresholds. The validity of the practice audiometry at three criteria of hearing impairment (0.5-4 kHz) was characterized by sensitivity (82-100%), specificity (95-99%); positive predictive values (75-90%) and negative predictive values (98-100%) focusing on the better ear. It is concluded that pure-tone audiometry of appropriate validity can be performed in general practice and that it is useful in selecting patients with no need of further audiological examination. Guidelines are needed.

Health tests and health consultations reduced cardiovascular risk without psychological strain, increased healthcare utilization or increased costs

“…Pure-tone audiometry was shown to have appropriate validity to be performed in general practice and to be useful in selecting people with no need for further audiological examination [30]. Hearing impairment (w20dB) was observed in 19% [31].…”

Otolaryngology Conditions and Diseases in Migrants: The Experience of the PROTECT Project

“…In the case of patients who had reported hearing loss at questionnaire, a hearing exam with pure tone audiometry and, if indicated, otoacoustic emissions was performed in the Policlinico Umberto I hospital; the response of the patient was considered valid only if the exams confirmed the presence of hearing loss [22][23][24]. Hearing loss was defined as a hearing threshold for two or more frequencies >25 dB HL in one or both ears.…”