2019Noise and HealthOpen access

Sensitivity and Specificity of Automated Audiometry in Subjects with Normal Hearing or Hearing Impairment

Åsa Skjönsberg, Catrine Heggen, Meisere Jamil, Per Muhr, Ulf Rosenhall

Open full text 9 citations

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To investigate the sensitivity and specificity in an automatic computer-controlled audiometric set-up, used for screening purposes. DESIGN: Comparison between standardized audiometry and automated audiometry performed in the same participants. STUDY SAMPLE: In total, 100 participants (51 females and 49 males) were recruited to take part of this study the same day they visited the hearing clinic for clinical audiometry. Ages varied between 18 and 84 years (mean 45.9 in females, 52.3 in males). RESULTS: The participants were divided into groups, dependent of type of hearing. A total of 23 had normal hearing, 40 had sensorineural hearing loss, 19 had conductive hearing loss and 18 showed asymmetric hearing loss. The sensitivity for the automated audiometry was 86%-100% and the specificity 56%-100%. The group with conductive hearing loss showed the poorest sensitivity (86 %) and specificity (56 %). The group with sensorineural hearing loss showed the smallest variation in difference between the two methods. CONCLUSIONS: The results show that automated audiometry is a method suitable to screen for hearing loss. Screening levels need to be selected with respect to cause of screening and environmental factors. For patients with asymmetric hearing thresholds it is necessary to consider the effect of transcranial routing of signals.

About this research paper

What this paper is about

OBJECTIVE: To investigate the sensitivity and specificity in an automatic computer-controlled audiometric set-up, used for screening purposes. DESIGN: Comparison between standardized audiometry and automated audiometry performed in the same participants. STUDY SAMPLE: In total, 100 participants (51 females and 49 males) were recruited to take part of this study the same day they visited the hearing clinic for clinical audiometry. Ages varied between 18 and 84 years (mean 45.9 in females, 52.3 in males). RESULTS: The participants were divided into groups, dependent of type of hearing. A total of 23 had normal hearing, 40 had sensorineural hearing loss, 19 had conductive hearing loss and 18 showed asymmetric hearing loss. The sensitivity for the automated audiometry was 86%-100% and the specificity 56%-100%. The group with conductive hearing loss showed the poorest sensitivity (86 %) and specificity (56 %). The group with sensorineural hearing loss showed the smallest variation in difference between the two methods. CONCLUSIONS: The results show that automated audiometry is a method suitable to screen for hearing loss. Screening levels need to be selected with respect to cause of screening and environmental factors. For patients with asymmetric hearing thresholds it is necessary to consider the effect of transcranial routing of signals.

Why it matters

OpenAlex reports 9 citations for this work. Citation counts describe recorded attention and do not establish research quality.

Key contribution

A contribution statement is not available in the OpenAlex record.

Method / approach

Method details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Main findings

Findings are not separately available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Limitations

Limitations are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Applications

Application details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Available abstract

OBJECTIVE: To investigate the sensitivity and specificity in an automatic computer-controlled audiometric set-up, used for screening purposes. DESIGN: Comparison between standardized audiometry and automated audiometry performed in the same participants. STUDY SAMPLE: In total, 100 participants (51 females and 49 males) were recruited to take part of this study the same day they visited the hearing clinic for clinical audiometry. Ages varied between 18 and 84 years (mean 45.9 in females, 52.3 in males). RESULTS: The participants were divided into groups, dependent of type of hearing. A total of 23 had normal hearing, 40 had sensorineural hearing loss, 19 had conductive hearing loss and 18 showed asymmetric hearing loss. The sensitivity for the automated audiometry was 86%-100% and the specificity 56%-100%. The group with conductive hearing loss showed the poorest sensitivity (86 %) and specificity (56 %). The group with sensorineural hearing loss showed the smallest variation in difference between the two methods. CONCLUSIONS: The results show that automated audiometry is a method suitable to screen for hearing loss. Screening levels need to be selected with respect to cause of screening and environmental factors. For patients with asymmetric hearing thresholds it is necessary to consider the effect of transcranial routing of signals.

Key concepts: Audiology, Audiometry, Medicine, Hearing loss, Conductive hearing loss, Sensorineural hearing loss, Absolute threshold of hearing

Related papers

Back to paper searchBrowse research topicsOriginal source
Sensitivity and Specificity of Automated Audiometry in Subjects with Normal Hearing or Hearing Impairment — Research Paper | ScholarLens