ReviewJournal of audiology & otology2025
Mobile Audiometry for Use in Ototoxicity Monitoring Programs: A Scoping Review.
Review in Journal of audiology & otology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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.
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.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Ototoxicity monitoring programs (OMPs) for cisplatin-induced hearing loss have not been widely adopted in clinical practice for various reasons. Mobile audiometry (MA) offers cost and convenience advantages over conventional pure-tone audiometry (CA) and it is currently used in hearing screening. However, there is no consensus on whether MA can replace CA for measuring hearing thresholds in OMPs. This scoping review examines the challenges of OMPs and evaluates the diagnostic accuracy of MA for hearing thresholds. A comprehensive search was conducted in four databases from their inception to December 2024. Data on study characteristics, reported OMP challenges, MA specifications, test settings, and performance measures were extracted. Nine studies on OMP challenges were reviewed. Identified barriers were inconsistent referrals, resource constraints, low awareness of ototoxicity monitoring, and patient-related factors. Twenty-three studies reporting on three portable audiometers, and 14 app-based hearing tests were evaluated for the diagnostic accuracy of MA for hearing thresholds. Only two studies involved testing at extended high frequencies. Studies used measures including MA-CA threshold differences, sensitivity/specificity, and test-retest reliability. App-based MA represents an accessible and scalable solution to the resource constraints faced by OMPs. However, its diagnostic accuracy remains uncertain given the substantial methodological variability across studies. OMPs using MAs should consider clinically validated modalities.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
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.