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.

Sudden sensorineural hearing loss (SSNHL) is an emergency clinical otology condition defined as hearing loss greater than 30 dB over three consecutive frequencies within 72 h. We aimed to integrate pretreatment hearing grades with reports of treatment recovery outcomes of SSNHL using the modified Siegel's criteria. This was a retrospective cohort study comprising 110 patients with SSNHL seen between January 2014 and January 2015. The patients were treated with combined systemic and intra-tympanic steroid therapy. The audiometric results were recorded using the modified Siegel's criteria, including pretreatment hearing grades 1-5 (grade 1: hearing threshold under 25 dB, grade 2: hearing threshold 26-45 dB, grade 3: hearing threshold 46-70 dB, grade 4: hearing threshold 71-90 dB, grade 5: hearing threshold over 90 dB) and hearing recovery outcomes, consisting of complete recovery (CR), partial recovery (PR), slight improvement (SI), no improvement (NI) or non-serviceable ears (NS). Patients were further assessed based on the treatment modality (initial or salvage treatment) and duration of the treatment delay. Hearing improvements (CR + PR + SI) were seen in 56 patients. Patients with pretreatment hearing grade 3 had the highest improvement rate (88.2% or 30/34). Patients who received the combined steroid therapy as the initial modality had a better overall hearing improvement rate than did the salvage group. Treatment within the first 14 days yielded a better hearing improvement rate than did late treatments of more than 14 days, especially in patients with a pretreatment hearing grade of 5. Using the modified Siegel's criteria, we report the hearing recovery outcomes with matched pretreatment hearing grades of patients with SSNHL treated with combined intra-tympanic steroid therapy. Our results show the prognostic significance of pretreatment hearing grades in patients with SSNHL.

Background: Pure-tone screening (PTS) is considered as the gold standard for hearing screening programs in school-age children. Mobile devices, such as mobile phones, have the potential for audiometric testing. Objective: This study aimed to demonstrate a new approach to rapidly screen hearing status and provide stratified test values, using a smartphone-based hearing screening app, for each screened ear of school-age children. Method: This was a prospective cohort study design. The proposed smartphone-based screening method and a standard sound-treated booth with PTS were used to assess 85 school-age children (170 ears). Sound-treated PTS involved applying 4 test tones to each tested ear: 500 Hz at 25 dB and 1000 Hz, 2000 Hz, and 4000 Hz at 20 dB. The results were classified as pass (normal hearing in the ear) or fail (possible hearing impairment). The proposed smartphone-based screening employs 20 stratified hearing scales. Thresholds were compared with those of pure-tone average (PTA). Results: A total of 85 subjects (170 ears), including 38 males and 47 females, aged between 11 and 12 years with a mean (SD) of 11 (0.5) years, participated in the trial. Both screening methods produced comparable pass and fail results (pass in 168 ears and fail in 2 ears). The smartphone-based screening detected moderate or worse hearing loss (average PTA>25 dB) accurately. Both the sensitivity and specificity of the smartphone-based screening method were calculated at 100%. Conclusions: The results of the proposed smartphone-based self-hearing test demonstrated high concordance with conventional PTS in a sound-treated booth. Our results suggested the potential use of the proposed smartphone-based hearing screening in a school-age population.

Objectives: Type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) imposes a great burden on healthcare systems, and these patients experience higher long-term risks for developing end-stage renal disease (ESRD). Managing diabetic nephropathy becomes more challenging when kidney function starts declining. Therefore, developing predictive models for the risk of developing ESRD in newly diagnosed T2DM patients may be helpful in clinical settings. Methods: We established machine learning models constructed from a subset of clinical features collected from 53,477 newly diagnosed T2DM patients from January 2008 to December 2018 and then selected the best model. The cohort was divided, with 70% and 30% of patients randomly assigned to the training and testing sets, respectively. Results: The discriminative ability of our machine learning models, including logistic regression, extra tree classifier, random forest, gradient boosting decision tree (GBDT), extreme gradient boosting (XGBoost), and light gradient boosting machine were evaluated across the cohort. XGBoost yielded the highest area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) of 0.953, followed by extra tree and GBDT, with AUC values of 0.952 and 0.938 on the testing dataset. The SHapley Additive explanation summary plot in the XGBoost model illustrated that the top five important features included baseline serum creatinine, mean serum creatine within 1 year before the diagnosis of T2DM, high-sensitivity C-reactive protein, spot urine protein-to-creatinine ratio and female gender. Conclusions: Because our machine learning prediction models were based on routinely collected clinical features, they can be used as risk assessment tools for developing ESRD. By identifying high-risk patients, intervention strategies may be provided at an early stage.

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).

Key Points: Question: Can the traditional Chinese version of the hearing handicap inventory for elderly screening (HHIE-S) checklist screen for age-related hearing loss (ARHL) in elderly individuals? Findings: In this cross-sectional study of 1696 Taiwanese patients who underwent annual government-funded geriatric health checkups, the Chinese version of the HHIE-S had a sensitivity of 76.9% and a specificity of 79.8% with a cutoff score greater than 6 for identifying patients with disabled hearing loss (defined as a PTA > 40 dB). Meaning: The traditional Chinese version of the HHIE-S is an effective test to detect ARHL and can improve the feasibility of large-scale hearing screening among elderly individuals. Purpose: The traditional Chinese version of the hearing handicap inventory for elderly screening (TC-HHIE-S) was translated from English and is intended for use with people whose native language is traditional Chinese, but its effectiveness and diagnostic performance are still unclear. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the validity and reliability of the traditional Chinese version of the HHIE-S for screening for age-related hearing loss (ARHL). Methods: A total of 1696 elderly people underwent the government’s annual geriatric medical examination at community hospitals. In this cross-sectional study, we recorded average conducted pure-tone averages (PTA) (0.5 kHz, 1 kHz, 2 kHz, 4 kHz), age, sex, and HHIE-S data. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve analysis was used to identify the best critical point for detecting hearing impairment, and the validity of the structure was verified by the agreement between the TC-HHIE-S and PTA results. Results: The HHIE-S scores were correlated with the better-ear pure-tone threshold averages (PTAs) at 0.5–4 kHz (correlation coefficient r = 0.45). The internal consistency of the total HHIE-S score was excellent (Cronbach’s alpha = 0.901), and the test-retest reliability was also excellent (Spearman’s correlation coefficient = 0.60, intraclass correlation coefficient = 0.75). In detecting disabled hearing loss (i.e., PTA at 0.5–4 kHz > 40 dB), the HHIE-S cutoff score of > 6 had a sensitivity of 76.9% and a specificity of 79.8%. Conclusions: The traditional Chinese version of the HHIE-S is a valid, reliable, and efficient tool for large-scale screening for ARHL.