ABSTRACT
OBJECTIVES: Chronic otitis media is a long-term infection of the middle ear. It is characterized by persistent discharge from the middle ear through a perforated tympanic membrane. It is one of the most common causes of preventable hearing loss, especially in developing countries. Precise estimation of the size of tympanic membrane perforation is essential for successful clinical management. In this study, we developed a smartphone-based application to calculate the ratio of the area of tympanic membrane perforation to the area of the tympanic membrane. Twelve standardized patients and 60 medical students were involved to assess the area of tympanic membrane perforation, in particular, the percentage of perforation size. METHODS: In total, 60 student doctors (including year 5 and year 6 medical students, intern and post-graduate year training of doctors) were recruited during their rotation at the Otolaryngology department of Taipei Medical University Shuang-Ho Hospital. Twelve standardized patients with chronic otitis media were recruited through a single otology practice. Oto-endoscopic examination was performed for all patients by using a commercially-available digital oto-endoscope, and clinical images of the tympanic membrane perforation were obtained. To demonstrate the variability of perforation size estimation by different student doctors, we calculated the percentage of perforation using the smartphone-based application for 12 tympanic membranes objectively and compared the results with those visually estimated by the 60 student doctors subjectively. RESULTS: The variance in the visual estimation by the 60 student doctors was large. By contrast, variances in smartphone-based application calculations were smaller, indicating consistency in the results obtained from different users. The smartphone-based application accurately estimated the presence of perforation for tympanic membranes with high consistency. The differences in visual estimations can be considerably great and the variances can be large among different individuals. CONCLUSIONS: The smartphone-based application is a dependable tool for precisely evaluating the size of tympanic membrane perforation.
ABSTRACT
Hearing impairment is a frequent human sensory impairment. It was estimated that over 50% of those aged >75 years experience hearing impairment in the United States. Several hearing impairment-related factors are detectable through screening; thus, further deterioration can be avoided. Early identification of hearing impairment is the key to effective management. However, hearing screening resources are scarce or inaccessible, underlining the importance of developing user-friendly mobile health care systems for universal hearing screening. Mobile health (mHealth) applications (apps) act as platforms for personalized hearing screening to evaluate an individual's risk of developing hearing impairment. We aimed to evaluate and compare the accuracy of smartphone-based air conduction and bone conduction audiometry self-tests with that of standard air conduction and bone conduction pure-tone audiometry tests. Moreover, we evaluated the use of smartphone-based air conduction and bone conduction audiometry self-tests in conductive hearing loss diagnosis. We recruited 103 patients (206 ears) from an otology clinic. All patients were aged ≥20 years. Patients who were diagnosed with active otorrhea was excluded. Moderate hearing impairment was defined as hearing loss with mean hearing thresholds >40 dB. All patients underwent four hearing tests performed by a board-certified audiologist: a smartphone-based air conduction audiometry self-test, smartphone-based bone conduction audiometry self-test, standard air-conduction pure-tone audiometry, and standard bone conduction pure-tone audiometry. We compared and analyzed the results of the smartphone-based air conduction and bone conduction audiometry self-tests with those of the standard air conduction and bone conduction pure-tone audiometry tests. The sensitivity of the smartphone-based air conduction audiometry self-test was 0.80 (95% confidence interval CI = 0.71-0.88) and its specificity was 0.84 (95% CI = 0.76-0.90), respectively. The sensitivity of the smartphone-based bone conduction audiometry self-test was 0.64 (95% CI = 0.53-0.75) and its specificity was 0.71 (95% CI = 0.62-0.78). Among all the ears, 24 were diagnosed with conductive hearing loss. The smartphone-based audiometry self-tests correctly diagnosed conductive hearing loss in 17 of those ears. The personalized smartphone-based audiometry self-tests correctly diagnosed hearing loss with high sensitivity and high specificity, and they can be a reliable screening test to rule out moderate hearing impairment among the population. It provided patients with moderate hearing impairment with personalized strategies for symptomatic control and facilitated individual case management for medical practitioners.
ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Hearing impairment is the most frequent sensory deficit in humans, affecting more than 360 million people worldwide. In fact, hearing impairment is not merely a health problem, but it also has a great impact on the educational performance, economic income, and quality of life. Hearing impairment is therefore an important social concern. OBJECTIVE: We aimed to evaluate and compare the accuracy of self-perception, Hearing Handicap Inventory for the Elderly-Screening (HHIE-S) questionnaire, free-field voice test, and smartphone-based audiometry as tests for screening moderate hearing impairment in older adults in China. METHODS: In this study, 41 patients were recruited through a single otology practice. All patients were older than 65 years. Patients with otorrhea and cognitive impairment were excluded. Moderate hearing impairment was defined as mean hearing thresholds at 500, 1000, 2000, and 4000 Hz >40 dB hearing loss (pure-tone average > 40 dB hearing loss). All patients completed 5 hearing tests, namely, the self-perception test, HHIE-S questionnaire test, free-field voice test, smartphone-based audiometry test, and standard pure-tone audiometry by the same audiologist. We compared the results of these tests to the standard audiogram in the better-hearing ear. RESULTS: The sensitivity and the specificity of the self-perception test were 0.58 (95% CI 0.29-0.84) and 0.34 (95% CI 0.19-0.54), respectively. The sensitivity and the specificity of the HHIE-S questionnaire test were 0.67 (95% CI 0.35-0.89) and 0.31 (95% CI 0.316-0.51), respectively. The sensitivity and the specificity of the free-field voice test were 0.83 (95% CI 0.51-0.97) and 0.41 (95% CI 0.24-0.61), respectively. The sensitivity and the specificity of the smartphone-based audiometry test were 0.92 (95% CI 0.60-0.99) and 0.76 (95% CI 0.56-0.89), respectively. Smartphone-based audiometry correctly diagnosed the presence of hearing loss with high sensitivity and high specificity. CONCLUSIONS: Smartphone-based audiometry may be a dependable screening test to rule out moderate hearing impairment in the older population.
