Clinical Validity of hearScreen™ Smartphone Hearing Screening for School Children
Clinical Validity of hearScreen™ Smartphone Hearing Screening for School Children
复制标题
DOI：
10.1097/aud.0000000000000223
复制
发表时间：
2016-01-01
期刊：
影响因子：
3.7
通讯作者：
Hall, James, III
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Mahomed-Asmail, Faheema;Swanepoel, De Wet;Hall, James, III
目的：本研究旨在确定智能手机听力筛查技术（hearScreen）的有效性与传统的筛查测听（1）的灵敏度和特异性，（2）转介率，（3）testtime.Design：1070学龄儿童在1至3年级（8 1.1平均年）从五所公立学校招募。儿童接受了两次筛查，一次使用传统听力测定，一次使用智能手机听力筛查。筛选进行了一个平衡的序列，交替之间的传统或智能手机听力screening.Results的初始屏幕：没有统计学显着差异的性能之间的技术被注意到，与智能手机筛选表现出同等的敏感性（75.0%）和特异性（98.5%），以传统的筛选测听。虽然智能手机筛查的转诊率较低（3.2%对4.6%），但没有显著差异（p > 0.05）。智能手机筛查（hearScreen）比传统screening.Conclusion快12.3%：使用hearScreen应用程序的智能手机听力筛查是准确和省时的。
Objectives: The study aimed to determine the validity of a smartphone hearing screening technology (hearScreen) compared with conventional screening audiometry in terms of (1) sensitivity and specificity, (2) referral rate, and (3) test time.Design: One thousand and seventy school-age children in grades 1 to 3 (8 1.1 average years) were recruited from five public schools. Children were screened twice, once using conventional audiometry and once with the smartphone hearing screening. Screening was conducted in a counterbalanced sequence, alternating initial screen between conventional or smartphone hearing screening.Results: No statistically significant difference in performance between techniques was noted, with smartphone screening demonstrating equivalent sensitivity (75.0%) and specificity (98.5%) to conventional screening audiometry. While referral rates were lower with the smartphone screening (3.2 vs. 4.6%), it was not significantly different (p > 0.05). Smartphone screening (hearScreen) was 12.3% faster than conventional screening.Conclusion: Smartphone hearing screening using the hearScreen application is accurate and time efficient.