Comparison of personal sound amplification products and conventional hearing aids for patients with hearing loss: A systematic review with meta-analysis.

Background: Hearing loss is a common morbidity that requires a hearing device to improve quality of life and prevent sequelae, such as dementia, depression falls, and cardiovascular disease. However, conventional hearing aids have some limitations, including poor accessibility and unaffordability. Consequently, personal sound amplification products (PSAPs) are considered a potential first-line alternative remedy for patients with hearing loss. The main objective of this study was to compare the efficacy of PSAPs and conventional hearing aids regarding hearing benefits in patients with hearing loss. Methods: This systematic review and meta-analysis followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. Five databases and reference lists were searched from inception to January 12, 2022. Studies including randomised, controlled trials; nonrandomised, controlled trials; or observational studies comparing PSAPs and hearing aids with regard to hearing gain performance (e.g., speech intelligence) were considered eligible. The review was registered prospectively on PROSPERO (CRD42021267187). Findings: Of 599 records identified in the preliminary search, five studies were included in the review and meta-analysis. A total of 124 patients were divided into the PSAP group and the conventional hearing aid group. Five studies including seven groups compared differences for speech intelligence in the signal-noise ratio (SNR) on the hearing in noise test (HINT) between PSAPs and conventional hearing aids. The pooled results showed nonsignificant differences in speech intelligence (SMD, 0.14; 95% CI, -0.19 to 0.47; P = .41; I 2=65%), sound quality (SMD, -0.37; 95% CI, -0.87 to 0.13; P = .15; I 2=77%) and listening effort (SMD 0.02; 95% CI, -0.24 to 0.29; P = .86; I 2=32%). Nonsignificant results were also observed in subsequent analyses after excluding patients with moderately severe hearing loss. Complete sensitivity analyses with all of the possible combinations suggested nonsignificant results in most of the comparisons between PSAPs and conventional hearing aids. Interpretation: PSAPs are potentially beneficial as conventional hearing aids are in patients with hearing loss. The different features among PSAPs should be considered for patients indicated for hearing devices. Funding: This work was supported by grants from Ministry of Science and Technology (MOST-10-2622-8-075-001) and Veterans General Hospitals and University System of Taiwan Joint Research Program (VGHUST111-G6-11-2 and VGHUST111c-140).

Smartphone-Enabled versus Conventional Otoscopy in Detecting Middle Ear Disease: A Meta-Analysis.

Traditional otoscopy has some limitations, including poor visualization and inadequate time for evaluation in suboptimal environments. Smartphone-enabled otoscopy may improve examination quality and serve as a potential diagnostic tool for middle ear diseases using a telemedicine approach. The main objectives are to compare the correctness of smartphone-enabled otoscopy and traditional otoscopy and to evaluate the diagnostic confidence of the examiner via meta-analysis. From inception through 20 January 2022, the Cochrane Library, PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science, and Scopus databases were searched. Studies comparing smartphone-enabled otoscopy with traditional otoscopy regarding the outcome of interest were eligible. The relative risk (RR) for the rate of correctness in diagnosing ear conditions and the standardized mean difference (SMD) in diagnostic confidence were extracted. Sensitivity analysis and trial sequential analyses (TSAs) were conducted to further examine the pooled results. Study quality was evaluated by using the revised Cochrane risk of bias tool 2. Consequently, a total of 1840 examinees were divided into the smartphone-enabled otoscopy group and the traditional otoscopy group. Overall, the pooled result showed that smartphone-enabled otoscopy was associated with higher correctness than traditional otoscopy (RR, 1.26; 95% CI, 1.06 to 1.51; p = 0.01; I2 = 70.0%). Consistently significant associations were also observed in the analysis after excluding the simulation study (RR, 1.10; 95% CI, 1.00 to 1.21; p = 0.04; I2 = 0%) and normal ear conditions (RR, 1.18; 95% CI, 1.01 to 1.40; p = 0.04; I2 = 65.0%). For the confidence of examiners using both otoscopy methods, the pooled result was nonsignificant between the smartphone-enabled otoscopy and traditional otoscopy groups (SMD, 0.08; 95% CI, -0.24 to 0.40; p = 0.61; I2 = 16.3%). In conclusion, smartphone-enabled otoscopy was associated with a higher rate of correctness in the detection of middle ear diseases, and in patients with otologic complaints, the use of smartphone-enabled otoscopy may be considered. More large-scale studies should be performed to consolidate the results.

Smartphone-bundled earphones as personal sound amplification products in adults with sensorineural hearing loss.

Given the low prevalence of hearing aid use among individuals with hearing loss due to their high costs and social stigma, personal sound amplification products (PSAPs) may serve as alternatives with adequate hearing compensation and greater accessibility. This study examined the electroacoustic features of hearing aids and selected smartphone-bundled earphones, specifically AirPods, as PSAPs, and compared hearing performances among adults with mild-to-moderate hearing loss when aided with each hearing assistive device. Our results indicated that AirPods Pro met four out of five PSAP standards. No significant differences were found regarding speech perception between AirPods Pro and hearing aids in quiet but not with the presence of background noises. AirPods Pro may have the potential to be a hearing assistive device for adults with mild-to-moderate hearing loss. More research is needed to investigate the safety and feasibility of using earphones bundled with other smartphones as PSAPs.

Diagnostic Accuracy of Smartphone-Based Audiometry for Hearing Loss Detection: Meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Hearing loss is one of the most common disabilities worldwide and affects both individual and public health. Pure tone audiometry (PTA) is the gold standard for hearing assessment, but it is often not available in many settings, given its high cost and demand for human resources. Smartphone-based audiometry may be equally effective and can improve access to adequate hearing evaluations. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this systematic review is to synthesize the current evidence of the role of smartphone-based audiometry in hearing assessments and further explore the factors that influence its diagnostic accuracy. METHODS: Five databases-PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, and Scopus-were queried to identify original studies that examined the diagnostic accuracy of hearing loss measurement using smartphone-based devices with conventional PTA as a reference test. A bivariate random-effects meta-analysis was performed to estimate the pooled sensitivity and specificity. The factors associated with diagnostic accuracy were identified using a bivariate meta-regression model. Study quality was assessed using the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies-2 tool. RESULTS: In all, 25 studies with a total of 4470 patients were included in the meta-analysis. The overall sensitivity, specificity, and area under the receiver operating characteristic curve for smartphone-based audiometry were 89% (95% CI 83%-93%), 93% (95% CI 87%-97%), and 0.96 (95% CI 0.93-0.97), respectively; the corresponding values for the smartphone-based speech recognition test were 91% (95% CI 86%-94%), 88% (95% CI 75%-94%), and 0.93 (95% CI 0.90-0.95), respectively. Meta-regression analysis revealed that patient age, equipment used, and the presence of soundproof booths were significantly related to diagnostic accuracy. CONCLUSIONS: We have presented comprehensive evidence regarding the effectiveness of smartphone-based tests in diagnosing hearing loss. Smartphone-based audiometry may serve as an accurate and accessible approach to hearing evaluations, especially in settings where conventional PTA is unavailable.

Association of Sodium Thiosulfate With Risk of Ototoxic Effects From Platinum-Based Chemotherapy: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

Importance: Platinum-induced ototoxic effects are a significant issue because platinum-based chemotherapy is one of the most commonly used therapeutic medications. Sodium thiosulfate (STS) is considered a potential otoprotectant for the prevention of platinum-induced ototoxic effects that functions by binding the platinum-based agent, but its administration raises concerns regarding the substantial attenuation of the antineoplastic outcome associated with platinum. Objective: To evaluate the association between concurrent STS and reduced risk of ototoxic effects among patients undergoing platinum-based chemotherapy and to evaluate outcomes, including event-free survival, overall survival, and adverse outcomes. Data Sources: From inception through November 7, 2020, databases, including the Cochrane Library, PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and Scopus, were searched. Study Selection: Studies enrolling patients with cancer who were undergoing platinum-based chemotherapy that compared ototoxic effects development between patients who received STS and patients who did not and provided adequate information for meta-analysis were regarded as eligible. This study followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. Data Extraction and Synthesis: The data were extracted by 2 reviewers independently. A random-effects model was used to explore objectives. Main Outcomes and Measures: Relative risks (RRs) for ototoxic effects development and hemopoietic event development comparing the experimental group and the control group were estimated. Secondary outcomes were hazard ratios (HRs) for event-free survival and overall survival. Sensitivity analysis and trial sequential analysis were conducted to further consolidate pooled results. Results: Among 4 eligible studies that were included, there were 3 randomized clinical trials and 1 controlled study. A total of 278 patients were allocated to the experimental group (ie, platinum-based chemotherapy plus STS; 158 patients, including 13 patients using contralatral ears of the control group as samples) or the control group (ie, chemotherapy; 133 patients, including 13 patients using contralateral ears of the experimental group as samples). Overall, patients who received STS had a statistically significantly decreased risk of ototoxic effects during the course of platinum-based chemotherapy (RR, 0.61; 95% CI, 0.49-0.77; P < .001; I2 = 5.0%) without a statistically significant increase in the risk of poor event-free survival (HR, 1.13; 95% CI, 0.70-1.82; P = .61; I2 = 0%) or overall survival (HR, 1.90; 95% CI, 0.90-4.03; P = .09; I2 = 0%). In the trial sequential analysis of event-free survival (z = -0.52) and overall survival (z = -1.68), although the cumulative z curves did not surpass the traditional significance boundary (-1.96 to 1.96 for both) or sequential monitoring boundary (event-free survival: -8.0 to 8.0; overall survival boundary not renderable in the analysis because the information size was too small) of the adjusted CI, they did not reach the required information size. Conclusions and Relevance: This meta-analysis found that concurrent STS delivery was associated with a decreased risk of platinum-induced ototoxic effects among patients treated with platinum-induced chemotherapy. These findings suggest that concurrent STS for protection against ototoxic effects should be considered for patients indicated for platinum-based chemotherapy.

A Smartphone-Based Approach to Screening for Sudden Sensorineural Hearing Loss: Cross-Sectional Validity Study.

BACKGROUND: Sudden sensorineural hearing loss (SSNHL) is an otologic emergency that warrants urgent management. Pure-tone audiometry remains the gold standard for definitively diagnosing SSNHL. However, in clinical settings such as primary care practices and urgent care facilities, conventional pure-tone audiometry is often unavailable. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to determine the correlation between hearing outcomes measured by conventional pure-tone audiometry and those measured by the proposed smartphone-based Ear Scale app and determine the diagnostic validity of the hearing scale differences between the two ears as obtained by the Ear Scale app for SSNHL. METHODS: This cross-sectional study included a cohort of 88 participants with possible SSNHL who were referred to an otolaryngology clinic or emergency department at a tertiary medical center in Taipei, Taiwan, between January 2018 and June 2019. All participants underwent hearing assessments with conventional pure-tone audiometry and the proposed smartphone-based Ear Scale app consecutively. The gold standard for diagnosing SSNHL was defined as the pure-tone average (PTA) difference between the two ears being ≥30 dB HL. The hearing results measured by the Ear Scale app were presented as 20 stratified hearing scales. The hearing scale difference between the two ears was estimated to detect SSNHL. RESULTS: The study sample comprised 88 adults with a mean age of 46 years, and 50% (44/88) were females. PTA measured by conventional pure-tone audiometry was strongly correlated with the hearing scale assessed by the Ear Scale app, with a Pearson correlation coefficient of .88 (95% CI .82-.92). The sensitivity of the 5-hearing scale difference (25 dB HL difference) between the impaired ear and the contralateral ear in diagnosing SSNHL was 95.5% (95% CI 87.5%-99.1%), with a specificity of 66.7% (95% CI 43.0%-85.4%). CONCLUSIONS: Our findings suggest that the proposed smartphone-based Ear Scale app can be useful in the evaluation of SSNHL in clinical settings where conventional pure-tone audiometry is not available.