Validation of self-hearing test in non-clinical setting: a systematic literature review

OBJECTIVES: This systematic literature review is focused on comparing automated audiometry with manual audiometry in nonclinical settings, with the primary objective of obtaining a comprehensive understanding of the advantages, limitations, and overall efficacy of automated audiometry. METHODS: Following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA 2020) guidelines and being registered at PROSPERO, the review utilises Joanna Briggs Institute Critical Appraisal tools to evaluate the quality and rigour of 11 selected research studies. RESULTS: Key findings highlight sensitivity and specificity ranging from 71% to 98.5%. Time efficiency considerations reveal a 12.3% faster smartphone screening time than conventional screening. The validation in children, as demonstrated, underscores the potential use of self-administered applications as initial tests for hearing problems in this demographic. CONCLUSION: This comprehensive review underscores the validity, reliability, and potential advantages of automated audiometry over traditional methods in nonclinical settings. While manual audiometry has long been considered the gold standard, automated audiometry demonstrates comparable outcomes, yielding clinically acceptable audiograms and offering potential cost-saving benefits.