Validity of Automated Threshold Audiometry: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Area of Science:

• Audiology
• Hearing Science
• Medical Technology

Background:

• Manual threshold audiometry is the established gold standard for hearing assessment.
• Automated audiometry offers potential for more efficient and standardized hearing testing.
• The validity of automated audiometry requires rigorous comparison against manual methods.

Purpose of the Study:

• To systematically review and meta-analyze the validity of automated threshold audiometry.
• To compare the test-retest reliability and accuracy of automated versus manual audiometry.
• To identify limitations in current validation data for automated audiometry.

Main Methods:

• A systematic literature review of peer-reviewed databases (MEDLINE, SCOPUS, PubMed) was conducted.
• A meta-analysis was performed on studies comparing manual and automated threshold audiometry within subjects.
• Data extraction focused on test-retest reliability and accuracy, using weighted mean differences.

Main Results:

• Twenty-nine reports on automated audiometry met inclusion criteria, primarily focusing on adults and air conduction.
• Meta-analysis showed test-retest reliability for automated audiometry was within typical variability of manual audiometry.
• Accuracy differences between manual and automated air conduction audiometry were comparable to test-retest differences.

Conclusions:

• Automated audiometry is an accurate method for measuring hearing thresholds.
• Validation data for automated bone conduction audiometry, pediatric use, and diverse hearing loss types remain limited.
• Further research is necessary to fully establish the utility of automated audiometry across all populations and conditions.