Dataset Information

A directly comparative two-gate case-control diagnostic accuracy study of the pure tone screen and HearCheck screener tests for identifying hearing impairment in school children.

ABSTRACT:

Objectives

This study directly compared the accuracy of two audiometry-based tests for screening school children for hearing impairment: the currently used test, pure tone screen and a device newly applied to children, HearCheck Screener.

Design

Two-gate case-control diagnostic test accuracy study.

Setting and participants

Hearing impaired children ('intended cases') aged 4-6 years were recruited between February 2013 and August 2014 from collaborating audiology services. Children with no previously identified impairment ('intended controls') were recruited from Foundation and Year 1 of schools between February 2013 and June 2014 in central England. The reference standard was pure tone audiometry. Tests were administered at Nottingham Hearing Biomedical Research Unit or, for some intended cases only, in the participant's home.

Main outcome measures

Sensitivity and specificity of the pure tone screen and HearCheck tests based on pure tone audiometry result as reference standard.

Results

315 children (630 ears) were recruited; 75 from audiology services and 240 from schools. Full test and reference standard data were obtained for 600 ears; 155 ears were classified as truly impaired and 445 as truly hearing based on the pure tone audiometry assessment. Sensitivity was estimated to be 94.2% (95% CI 89.0% to 97.0%) for pure tone screen and 89.0% (95% CI 82.9% to 93.1%) for HearCheck (difference=5.2% favouring pure tone screen; 95% CI 0.2% to 10.1%; p=0.02). Estimates for specificity were 82.2% (95% CI 77.7% to 86.0%) for pure tone screen and 86.5% (95% CI 82.5% to 89.8%) for HearCheck (difference=4.3% favouring HearCheck; 95% CI0.4% to 8.2%; p=0.02).

Conclusion

Pure tone screen was better than HearCheck with respect to sensitivity but inferior with respect to specificity. As avoiding missed cases is arguably of greater importance for school entry screening, pure tone screen is probably preferable in this context.

Study registration number

Current controlled trials: ISRCTN61668996.

SUBMITTER: Ukoumunne OC

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5541595 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:ImportanceAge-adjusted prevalence of hearing impairment (HI) decreased across generations in the 20th century, suggesting that HI is partially preventable. It is not known whether HI incidence differs by generation.ObjectivesTo examine whether HI incidence and change in pure-tone average (PTA) differ by generation and identify factors underlying these differences.Design, setting, and participantsThis cohort study used data from the Epidemiology of Hearing Loss Study (EHLS) and Beaver Dam Offspring Study (BOSS), a pair of studies of adults in Beaver Dam, Wisconsin. Baseline examinations occurred from 1993 to 1995 in the EHLS and 2005 to 2008 in BOSS, with two 5-year follow-up examinations in each cohort. This longitudinal cohort study assessed 3651 participants without HI at baseline who had follow-up data.Main outcomes and measuresThe primary outcome was incident HI measured by pure-tone audiometry, defined as PTA greater than 25-dB hearing level (dB HL) in either ear. Associations of 5-year incidence were estimated by relative risks (RRs) and 10-year cumulative incidence with generation, as categorized by commonly used sociodemographic descriptors of year of birth, by hazard ratios (HRs). The 10-year change in PTA was investigated using a generation × time interaction term in generalized estimating equation models.ResultsAmong the 3651 participants (mean [SD] age at baseline 53.1 [10.6] years; 2255 [61.8%] female; and 3567 [97.7%] non-Hispanic White), the 5-year HI incidence was 14.1% (95% CI, 13.0%-15.3%) and the 10-year cumulative incidence was 26.0% (95% CI, 24.6%-27.6%). The incidence increased with age. The risk of 5-year incident HI decreased by generation (RR, 0.80; 95% CI, 0.66-0.97) when adjusting for multiple covariates. The decreased risk was similar in the 10-year period (HR, 0.86; 95% CI, 0.73-1.01). The PTA change rate (per 5 years of follow-up) decreased by generation, with the Greatest Generation (born 1901-1924) experiencing the highest rate (7.03 dB HL). The rates were all significantly lower for the other generations (Silent Generation [born 1925-1945], 3.30 dB HL; Baby Boom Generation [born 1946-1964], 3.36 dB HL; and Generation X [born 1965-1984], 2.33 dB HL).Conclusions and relevanceThis study suggests that the risk of HI and rate of PTA change is lower for the Silent Generation and Baby Boom Generation compared with the Greatest Generation. Part of this lower risk is likely associated with changes in modifiable factors. A potential continued benefit may exist for Generation X. Combined with the reduced risk of HI for the Silent Generation and Baby Boom Generation, this finding implies that the future HI burden may be lower than current estimates suggest.

Project description:BackgroundHearing impairment is the most frequent sensory deficit in humans, affecting more than 360 million people worldwide. In fact, hearing impairment is not merely a health problem, but it also has a great impact on the educational performance, economic income, and quality of life. Hearing impairment is therefore an important social concern.ObjectiveWe aimed to evaluate and compare the accuracy of self-perception, Hearing Handicap Inventory for the Elderly-Screening (HHIE-S) questionnaire, free-field voice test, and smartphone-based audiometry as tests for screening moderate hearing impairment in older adults in China.MethodsIn this study, 41 patients were recruited through a single otology practice. All patients were older than 65 years. Patients with otorrhea and cognitive impairment were excluded. Moderate hearing impairment was defined as mean hearing thresholds at 500, 1000, 2000, and 4000 Hz >40 dB hearing loss (pure-tone average > 40 dB hearing loss). All patients completed 5 hearing tests, namely, the self-perception test, HHIE-S questionnaire test, free-field voice test, smartphone-based audiometry test, and standard pure-tone audiometry by the same audiologist. We compared the results of these tests to the standard audiogram in the better-hearing ear.ResultsThe sensitivity and the specificity of the self-perception test were 0.58 (95% CI 0.29-0.84) and 0.34 (95% CI 0.19-0.54), respectively. The sensitivity and the specificity of the HHIE-S questionnaire test were 0.67 (95% CI 0.35-0.89) and 0.31 (95% CI 0.316-0.51), respectively. The sensitivity and the specificity of the free-field voice test were 0.83 (95% CI 0.51-0.97) and 0.41 (95% CI 0.24-0.61), respectively. The sensitivity and the specificity of the smartphone-based audiometry test were 0.92 (95% CI 0.60-0.99) and 0.76 (95% CI 0.56-0.89), respectively. Smartphone-based audiometry correctly diagnosed the presence of hearing loss with high sensitivity and high specificity.ConclusionsSmartphone-based audiometry may be a dependable screening test to rule out moderate hearing impairment in the older population.

Project description:INTRODUCTION:Hearing loss (HL) is a frequent problem among the elderly and has been studied in many cohort studies. However, pure tone audiometry-the gold standard-is rather time-consuming and costly for large population-based studies. We have investigated if self-reported hearing loss, using a multiple choice question, can be used to assess HL in absence of pure tone audiometry. METHODS:This study was performed within 4,906 participants of the Rotterdam Study. The question (in Dutch) that was investigated was: 'Do you have any difficulty with your hearing (without hearing aids)?'. The answer options were: 'never', 'sometimes', 'often' and 'daily'. Mild hearing loss or worse was defined as PTA0.5-4(Pure Tone Average 0.5, 1, 2 & 4 kHz) ≥20dBHL and moderate HL or worse as ≥35dBHL. A univariable linear regression model was fitted with the PTA0.5-4 and the answer to the question. Subsequently, sex, age and education were added in a multivariable linear regression model. The ability of the question to classify HL, accounting for sex, age and education, was explored through logistic regression models creating prediction estimates, which were plotted in ROC curves. RESULTS:The variance explained (R2) by the univariable regression was 0.37, which increased substantially after adding age (R2 = 0.60). The addition of sex and educational level, however, did not alter the R2 (0.61). The ability of the question to classify hearing loss, reflected in the area under the curve (AUC), was 0.70 (95% CI 0.68, 0.71) for mild hearing loss or worse and 0.86 (95% CI 0.85, 0.87) for moderate hearing loss or worse. The AUC increased substantially when sex, education and age were taken into account (AUC mild HL: 0.73 (95%CI 0.71, 0.75); moderate HL 0.90 (95%CI 0.89, 0.91)). CONCLUSION:Self-reported hearing loss using a single question has a good ability to detect hearing loss in older adults, especially when age is accounted for. A single question cannot substitute audiometry, but it can assess hearing loss on a population level with reasonable accuracy.

Project description:BackgroundSeveral expert groups, including the United States Preventive Services Task Force and the Canadian Task Force on Preventive Health Care, have recently examined or are currently examining whether primary care physicians should screen asymptomatic adults for hepatitis C virus (HCV) infection. To inform decision-making on HCV screening, we performed a systematic review of the accuracy of antibody tests compared with other immunoassays and RNA detection for screening asymptomatic adults for HCV infection in Canada.MethodsMEDLINE and Embase databases were searched from 1990 to 2016; resulting citations were uploaded into DistillerSR and independently screened by 2 reviewers. Original research studies, systematic reviews and meta-analyses were eligible for inclusion. At least 80% of the study population had to be asymptomatic, nonpregnant, treatment-naïve adults with unknown liver enzyme values and unknown HCV status. Risk of bias was assessed with the use of the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies version 2 (QUADAS-2) tool; the quality of the body of evidence was assessed by means of GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation) methodology.ResultsOf 1537 articles identified, 81 underwent full-text review, and 9 studies met the inclusion criteria. Compared with RNA detection, the sensitivity of the third-generation enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay was variable (61.0%-81.8%), and its specificity was high (97.5%-99.7%). As expected, there were more false-positive results when comparing antibody tests to RNA detection than to other immunoassays. Our GRADE assessment suggested that there was a high concern for risk of bias, particularly verification bias, and substantial inconsistency between studies in terms of their design.InterpretationMore research is needed to better characterize the accuracy of antibody tests used to screen for HCV infection in the general population. Jurisdictions that recently adopted birth cohort screening for HCV infection are encouraged to evaluate and report on the accuracy of HCV screening tests and screening benefits and harms. PROSPERO registration: no. CRD42016039710.