close
Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Review
. 2018 Oct;24(4):263-275.
doi: 10.4258/hir.2018.24.4.263. Epub 2018 Oct 31.

Automated Audiometry: A Review of the Implementation and Evaluation Methods

Affiliations
Review

Automated Audiometry: A Review of the Implementation and Evaluation Methods

Hassan Shojaeemend et al. Healthc Inform Res. 2018 Oct.

Abstract

Objectives: Automated audiometry provides an opportunity to do audiometry when there is no direct access to a clinical audiologist. This approach will help to use hearing services and resources efficiently. The purpose of this study was to review studies related to automated audiometry by focusing on the implementation of an audiometer, the use of transducers and evaluation methods.

Methods: This review study was conducted in 2017. The papers related to the design and implementation of automated audiometry were searched in the following databases: Science Direct, Web of Science, PubMed, and Scopus. The time frame for the papers was between January 1, 2010 and August 31, 2017. Initially, 143 papers were found, and after screening, the number of papers was reduced to 16.

Results: The findings showed that the implementation methods were categorized into the use of software (7 papers), hardware (3 papers) and smartphones/tablets (6 papers). The used transducers were a variety of earphones and bone vibrators. Different evaluation methods were used to evaluate the accuracy and the reliability of the diagnoses. However, in most studies, no significant difference was found between automated and traditional audiometry.

Conclusions: It seems that automated audiometry produces the same results compared with traditional audiometry. However, the main advantages of this method; namely, saving costs and increased accessibility to hearing services, can lead to a faster diagnosis of hearing impairment, especially in poor areas.

Keywords: Audiology; Audiometry; Hearing Loss.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Conflict of Interest: No potential conflict of interest relevant to this article was reported.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1. The process of selecting papers for the research.
Figure 2
Figure 2. Different types of earphones.

References

    1. Mahomed F, Swanepoel de W, Eikelboom RH, Soer M. Validity of automated threshold audiometry: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Ear Hear. 2013;34(6):745–752. - PubMed
    1. Eikelboom RH, Swanepoel de W, Motakef S, Upson GS. Clinical validation of the AMTAS automated audiometer. Int J Audiol. 2013;52(5):342–349. - PubMed
    1. Sandstrom J, Swanepoel de W, Carel Myburgh H, Laurent C. Smartphone threshold audiometry in underserved primary health-care contexts. Int J Audiol. 2016;55(4):232–238. - PubMed
    1. Margolis RH, Morgan DE. Automated pure-tone audiometry: an analysis of capacity, need, and benefit. Am J Audiol. 2008;17(2):109–113. - PubMed
    1. Whitton JP, Hancock KE, Shannon JM, Polley DB. Validation of a self-administered audiometry application: an equivalence study. Laryngoscope. 2016;126(10):2382–2388. - PubMed