Validated Smartphone-Based Apps for Ear and Hearing Assessments: A Review

Abstract

BackgroundAn estimated 360 million people have a disabling hearing impairment globally, the vast majority of whom live in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). Early identification through screening is important to negate the negative effects of untreated hearing impairment. Substantial barriers exist in screening for hearing impairment in LMICs, such as the requirement for skilled hearing health care professionals and prohibitively expensive specialist equipment to measure hearing. These challenges may be overcome through utilization of increasingly available smartphone app technologies for ear and hearing assessments that are easy to use by unskilled professionals.ObjectiveOur objective was to identify and compare available apps for ear and hearing assessments and consider the incorporation of such apps into hearing screening programsMethodsIn July 2015, the commercial app stores Google Play and Apple App Store were searched to identify apps for ear and hearing assessments. Thereafter, six databases (EMBASE, MEDLINE, Global Health, Web of Science, CINAHL, and mHealth Evidence) were searched to assess which of the apps identified in the commercial review had been validated against gold standard measures. A comparison was made between validated apps.ResultsApp store search queries returned 30 apps that could be used for ear and hearing assessments, the majority of which are for performing audiometry. The literature search identified 11 eligible validity studies that examined 6 different apps. uHear, an app for self-administered audiometry, was validated in the highest number of peer reviewed studies against gold standard pure tone audiometry (n=5). However, the accuracy of uHear varied across these studies.ConclusionsVery few of the available apps have been validated in peer-reviewed studies. Of the apps that have been validated, further independent research is required to fully understand their accuracy at detecting ear and hearing conditions.

Is hearing impairment associated with HIV? A systematic review of data from low‐ and middle‐income countries

“…Clinical screening using audiology is therefore recommended, as often happens in high‐income settings. This screening is now more feasible with the availability of low‐cost mobile tools, such as HearTest and HearScreen . An ear examination would also be helpful to identify other ear conditions, such as CSOM, although constraints on the availability of skilled staff may make this difficult to implement.…”

Reliability of the Home Hearing Test: Implications for Public Health

“…Some examples include internet-based hearing screenings which are accessed online (Krumm et al, 2007;Bexelius et al, 2008), computer-based tests which measure hearing sensitivity using software downloaded onto a desktop, laptop, or tablet computer (iHear Medical, 2016;Folmer et al, 2017), and screening tests that can be completed over a landline telephone (Smits et al, 2004;Watson et al, 2012;Williams-Sanchez et al, 2014). Other examples include mobile testing and using smartphone applications (Szudek et al, 2012;Handzel et al, 2013;Clark and Swanepoel, 2014;Bright and Pallawela, 2016;Yousuf Hussein et al, 2016). One advantage of these newer methods is that they are less expensive than professional diagnostic hearing tests (Margolis and Morgan, 2008), providing a cost-effective approach to assessing populations with limited access to traditional clinical services.…”

Methods used in mobile applications for the diagnosis of hearing loss: A systematic mapping study

“…De revista científica [19], [20], [9], [21], [22], [23], [24], [25], [6], [14], [26], [27], [11], [28], [29], [4], [30], [5], [31], [32], [12], [13], [33], [34], [35], [36] De conferencia [37], [38] Manuscrito [39] El protocolo de investigación más utilizado es el estudio de caso, el 69% (n=20) de los estudios primarios que utilizan este protocolo hacen referencia a aplicaciones móviles…”

“…Ciencia del diseño [17], [20], [21], [24], [26], [11], [34], [35] Estudio de caso [16], [8], [18], [19], [22], [5], [13], [23], [10], [3], [27], [4], [28], [29], [12], [30], [31], [32], [36], [25] Revisión de literatura [33] Tomando como referencia el período comprendido entre los años 2003 y 2018, tiempo durante en el cual se desarrollaron y evaluaron aplicaciones móviles para diagnóstico de pérdida auditiva, se encontró que del total de estudios seleccionados: el 21% se publicaron en el 2016, el 24% se publicaron en el 2017 y el 17% se publicaron hasta mayo del 2018, años en los que se presentaron un mayor número de publicaciones, con estudios de caso de aplicaciones móviles disponibles en el mercado online y, publicaciones donde se desarrollaron nuevas aplicaciones para el diagnóstico de pérdida auditiva, que no han sido comercializadas, en la Figura 2 se puede observar la distribución de artículos por año de publicación.…”