Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39414646›Full record

ArticleEuropean archives of oto-rhino-laryngology : official journal of the European Federation of Oto-Rhino-Laryngological Societies (EUFOS) : affiliated with the German Society for Oto-Rhino-Laryngology - Head and Neck Surgery2025

Evaluating the accuracy of a self-administered smartphone hearing test application in a geriatric population.

Andre Jun Hui Wong, Ryan Ruiyang Ling, Chong Boon Teo, Jeremy Chee, Raymond Yeow Seng Ngo, Woei Shyang Loh, Eunice Dawn Kwa

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in European archives of oto-rhino-laryngology : official journal of the European Federation of Oto-Rhino-Laryngological Societies (EUFOS) : affiliated with the German Society for Oto-Rhino-Laryngology - Head and Neck Surgery, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors.

Andre Jun Hui WongYong Loo Lin School of Medicine, National University of Singapore, Singapore, Singapore. andrewongjh@gmail.com.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-2616-1684
Ryan Ruiyang LingYong Loo Lin School of Medicine, National University Health System, National University of Singapore, Singapore, Singapore.
Chong Boon TeoYong Loo Lin School of Medicine, National University of Singapore, Singapore, Singapore.
Jeremy CheeDepartment of Otolaryngology, Head & Neck Surgery, National University Hospital, Singapore, Singapore.
Raymond Yeow Seng NgoDepartment of Otolaryngology, Head & Neck Surgery, National University Hospital, Singapore, Singapore.
Woei Shyang LohYong Loo Lin School of Medicine, National University Health System, National University of Singapore, Singapore, Singapore.
Eunice Dawn KwaDepartment of Otolaryngology, Head & Neck Surgery, National University Hospital, Singapore, Singapore.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundAs the global population ages, hearing loss becomes increasingly prevalent, and is associated with neurocognitive and psychiatric comorbidities, impacting quality of life. Early screening and timely intervention might prevent or delay cognitive decline, a gap in care that can potentially be addressed by self-administered smartphone hearing tests.

objectiveThis study aims to evaluate the accuracy of Mimi™ (Berlin, Germany), a commercially available self-administered smartphone hearing test compared to pure tone audiogram (PTA) in terms of both hearing levels and hearing thresholds in our local geriatric population > 65 years-old.

methodFifty-two participants above 65 years of age requiring conventional audiograms were recruited from a National Referral University Hospital Otolaryngology clinic from March to June 2022. All participants were administered the conventional PTA tests in a sound-proof booth conducted by audiology technicians followed by Mimi™ Hearing Test in a quiet clinic room. Comparisons between the hearing levels of both tests were analyzed using Spearman's rank correlation coefficient, Bland-Altman plots and Gwet's Kappa which looked at concordance. Hearing thresholds were then analysed using the Wilcoxon signed rank (SR) test.

resultsMimi™ showed strong to very strong correlation with good agreement compared to readings obtained from formal PTA. Concordance in determining hearing loss also showed substantial to almost perfect agreement at each individual frequency, with values of kappa falling between 0.735-0.857. In terms of thresholds, there were no significant differences in thresholds given by both tests except for 2.0 kHz, HFPTA and 4FPTA (p < 0.05).

conclusionMimi™ serves as a good screening tool for detection of moderate hearing loss for early pickup and treatment except at higher frequencies. The smartphone hearing test is also less accurate in determining the extent of hearing loss and formal PTA after hearing loss is detected on screening should still be standard of care.

Indexed as

Hearing LossHearing TestsMobile ApplicationsSmartphoneAgedAged, 80 and overAudiometry, Pure-ToneAuditory ThresholdFemaleHumansMaleReproducibility of ResultsAudiogramAudiologyGeriatricsHearing TestOtologySmartphone Hearing Test

Identifiers

PMID39414646

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.