Background: Hearing loss is one of the most common disabilities worldwide and affects both individual and public health. Pure tone audiometry (PTA) is the gold standard for hearing assessment, but it is often not available in many settings, given its high cost and demand for human resources. Smartphone-based audiometry may be equally effective and can improve access to adequate hearing evaluations. Objective: The aim of this systematic review is to synthesize the current evidence of the role of smartphone-based audiometry in hearing assessments and further explore the factors that influence its diagnostic accuracy. Methods: Five databases—PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, and Scopus—were queried to identify original studies that examined the diagnostic accuracy of hearing loss measurement using smartphone-based devices with conventional PTA as a reference test. A bivariate random-effects meta-analysis was performed to estimate the pooled sensitivity and specificity. The factors associated with diagnostic accuracy were identified using a bivariate meta-regression model. Study quality was assessed using the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies-2 tool. Results: In all, 25 studies with a total of 4470 patients were included in the meta-analysis. The overall sensitivity, specificity, and area under the receiver operating characteristic curve for smartphone-based audiometry were 89% (95% CI 83%-93%), 93% (95% CI 87%-97%), and 0.96 (95% CI 0.93-0.97), respectively; the corresponding values for the smartphone-based speech recognition test were 91% (95% CI 86%-94%), 88% (95% CI 75%-94%), and 0.93 (95% CI 0.90-0.95), respectively. Meta-regression analysis revealed that patient age, equipment used, and the presence of soundproof booths were significantly related to diagnostic accuracy. Conclusions: We have presented comprehensive evidence regarding the effectiveness of smartphone-based tests in diagnosing hearing loss. Smartphone-based audiometry may serve as an accurate and accessible approach to hearing evaluations, especially in settings where conventional PTA is unavailable.

Hearing loss is a common morbidity that requires a hearing device to improve quality of life and prevent sequelae, such as dementia, depression falls, and cardiovascular disease. However, conventional hearing aids have some limitations, including poor accessibility and unaffordability. Consequently, personal sound amplification products (PSAPs) are considered a potential first-line alternative remedy for patients with hearing loss. The main objective of this study was to compare the efficacy of PSAPs and conventional hearing aids regarding hearing benefits in patients with hearing loss. This systematic review and meta-analysis followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. Five databases and reference lists were searched from inception to January 12, 2022. Studies including randomised, controlled trials; nonrandomised, controlled trials; or observational studies comparing PSAPs and hearing aids with regard to hearing gain performance (e.g., speech intelligence) were considered eligible. The review was registered prospectively on PROSPERO (CRD42021267187). Of 599 records identified in the preliminary search, five studies were included in the review and meta-analysis. A total of 124 patients were divided into the PSAP group and the conventional hearing aid group. Five studies including seven groups compared differences for speech intelligence in the signal-noise ratio (SNR) on the hearing in noise test (HINT) between PSAPs and conventional hearing aids. The pooled results showed nonsignificant differences in speech intelligence (SMD, 0.14; 95% CI, -0.19 to 0.47; P = .41; I²=65%), sound quality (SMD, -0.37; 95% CI, -0.87 to 0.13; P = .15; I²=77%) and listening effort (SMD 0.02; 95% CI, -0.24 to 0.29; P = .86; I²=32%). Nonsignificant results were also observed in subsequent analyses after excluding patients with moderately severe hearing loss. Complete sensitivity analyses with all of the possible combinations suggested nonsignificant results in most of the comparisons between PSAPs and conventional hearing aids. PSAPs are potentially beneficial as conventional hearing aids are in patients with hearing loss. The different features among PSAPs should be considered for patients indicated for hearing devices. This work was supported by grants from Ministry of Science and Technology (MOST-10-2622-8-075-001) and Veterans General Hospitals and University System of Taiwan Joint Research Program (VGHUST111-G6-11-2 and VGHUST111c-140).

Traditional otoscopy has some limitations, including poor visualization and inadequate time for evaluation in suboptimal environments. Smartphone-enabled otoscopy may improve examination quality and serve as a potential diagnostic tool for middle ear diseases using a telemedicine approach. The main objectives are to compare the correctness of smartphone-enabled otoscopy and traditional otoscopy and to evaluate the diagnostic confidence of the examiner via meta-analysis. From inception through 20 January 2022, the Cochrane Library, PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science, and Scopus databases were searched. Studies comparing smartphone-enabled otoscopy with traditional otoscopy regarding the outcome of interest were eligible. The relative risk (RR) for the rate of correctness in diagnosing ear conditions and the standardized mean difference (SMD) in diagnostic confidence were extracted. Sensitivity analysis and trial sequential analyses (TSAs) were conducted to further examine the pooled results. Study quality was evaluated by using the revised Cochrane risk of bias tool 2. Consequently, a total of 1840 examinees were divided into the smartphone-enabled otoscopy group and the traditional otoscopy group. Overall, the pooled result showed that smartphone-enabled otoscopy was associated with higher correctness than traditional otoscopy (RR, 1.26; 95% CI, 1.06 to 1.51; p = 0.01; I² = 70.0%). Consistently significant associations were also observed in the analysis after excluding the simulation study (RR, 1.10; 95% CI, 1.00 to 1.21; p = 0.04; I² = 0%) and normal ear conditions (RR, 1.18; 95% CI, 1.01 to 1.40; p = 0.04; I² = 65.0%). For the confidence of examiners using both otoscopy methods, the pooled result was nonsignificant between the smartphone-enabled otoscopy and traditional otoscopy groups (SMD, 0.08; 95% CI, -0.24 to 0.40; p = 0.61; I² = 16.3%). In conclusion, smartphone-enabled otoscopy was associated with a higher rate of correctness in the detection of middle ear diseases, and in patients with otologic complaints, the use of smartphone-enabled otoscopy may be considered. More large-scale studies should be performed to consolidate the results.