International journal of pediatric otorhinolaryngology · 2018
Validation of a portable hearing assessment tool: Agilis Health Mobile Audiogram.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Manganella Juliana L, Stiles Derek J, Kawai Kosuke, Barrett Devon L, O'Brien Laura B, Kenna Margaret A
Аннотация
OBJECTIVES: To examine if the tablet-based Agilis Health Mobile Audiogram (Agilis Audiogram) is an effective and valid measure of hearing thresholds compared to a pure-tone audiogram in an adult and pediatric population.
METHODS: Participants underwent an otologic exam, conventional audiometric evaluation and the self-administered Agilis Audiogram. We examined whether the difference of pure-tone average (PTA) between the two measurement techniques fell within the equivalence range of ±8 dB. The Agilis Audiogram was administered twice for each subject to assess test-retest reliability of the application.
RESULTS: A total of 54 ears from 27 participants were evaluated. The average time to complete the self-administered Agilis Audiogram was 10 min. Among participants with normal hearing, the average PTA from conventional audiometric evaluation was 8.9 dB (±3.8) and the average PTA from the Agilis Audiogram was 8.5 dB (±4.5), with mean difference of 0.4 dB (±4.2; 95% CI -1.0 to 1.7 dB) falling within the equivalence range (-8 to 8 dB). Among participants with confirmed hearing loss, the average PTA was 22.5 dB (±17.1) from conventional audiometric evaluation and 24.3 dB (±16.6) from the Agilis Audiogram, with mean difference of -1.8 dB (±5.4; 95% CI -4.9 to 1.3 dB), falling within the equivalence range. Overall, there was a significant correlation between conventional audiometric evaluation and the Agilis Audiogram (Pearson correlation = 0.93; p < 0.001).
CONCLUSION: Thresholds obtained by the Agilis Audiogram were found to be a valid measure of hearing among adults with normal hearing and children with hearing loss in the mild-moderate range.
METHODS: Participants underwent an otologic exam, conventional audiometric evaluation and the self-administered Agilis Audiogram. We examined whether the difference of pure-tone average (PTA) between the two measurement techniques fell within the equivalence range of ±8 dB. The Agilis Audiogram was administered twice for each subject to assess test-retest reliability of the application.
RESULTS: A total of 54 ears from 27 participants were evaluated. The average time to complete the self-administered Agilis Audiogram was 10 min. Among participants with normal hearing, the average PTA from conventional audiometric evaluation was 8.9 dB (±3.8) and the average PTA from the Agilis Audiogram was 8.5 dB (±4.5), with mean difference of 0.4 dB (±4.2; 95% CI -1.0 to 1.7 dB) falling within the equivalence range (-8 to 8 dB). Among participants with confirmed hearing loss, the average PTA was 22.5 dB (±17.1) from conventional audiometric evaluation and 24.3 dB (±16.6) from the Agilis Audiogram, with mean difference of -1.8 dB (±5.4; 95% CI -4.9 to 1.3 dB), falling within the equivalence range. Overall, there was a significant correlation between conventional audiometric evaluation and the Agilis Audiogram (Pearson correlation = 0.93; p < 0.001).
CONCLUSION: Thresholds obtained by the Agilis Audiogram were found to be a valid measure of hearing among adults with normal hearing and children with hearing loss in the mild-moderate range.