The reliability of remote diagnostic hearing assessment in school-entry-aged children

Figures & data

Figure 1. Representation of testing setup for remote assessments.

Table 1. Prevalence of hearing loss amongst 464 children tested, based on traditional face-to-face assessment.

	Test group N (%) (N = 436)	Control group N (%) (N = 28)
All hearing loss	74 (17.0)	4 (14.29)
Location
Metro	48 (64.9)	4 (100)
Regional/rural	26 (35.1)	0 (100)
Type
Conductive	59 (13.5)	3 (10.7)
Sensory	14 (3.2)	1 (3.6)
Mixed	1 (0.2)	0 (0)
Degree
Mild	58 (13.3)	4 (100)
Moderate	14 (3.2)	0 (0)
Severe	2 (0.5)	0 (0)
Profound	0 (0)	0 (0)
Ears affected
Bilateral	47 (10.8)	0 (0)
Unilateral	27 (6.2)	4 (100)

Figure 2. Overlayed scatterplots of individual thresholds obtained for A. 1 kHz AC, B. 4 kHz AC, C. 1 kHz BC, and D. 4 kHz BC.

Figure 3. Face-to-face and remote audiograms obtained from one participant with mild conductive hearing loss. Black symbols indicate air conduction and masked bone conduction for traditional assessment, while red and blue symbols indicate thresholds obtained using remote testing for the right and left ear, respectively.

Table 2. Otoscopy classifications and tympanometry types for the sample of 752 ears in test group.

	Face-to-face N (%) (N = 752)	Remote N (%) (N = 752)
Otoscopy classification
Atresia	1 (0.1)	1 (0.1)
Clear	518 (68.9)	488 (64.9)
Could not be assessed	5 (0.3)	5 (0.3)
Foreign object	1 (0.1)	1 (0.1)
Image too unclear	0 (0)	9 (1.2)
Middle ear pathology	35 (4.7)	33 (4.4)
Tympanic membrane scarring	8 (1.1)	12 (1.6)
Ventilation tube	7 (0.9)	7 (0.9)
Wax (non-occluding)	167 (22.2)	179 (23.8)
Wax occlusion	10 (1.3)	17 (2.3)
Tympanometry type
A	481 (64.0)	485 (64.5)
Ad	3 (0.4)	3 (0.4)
As	9 (1.2)	11 (1.5)
B	77 (10.2)	84 (11.2)
B (high volume)	2 (0.3)	2 (0.3)
C	162 (21.5)	153 (20.4)
Could not be assessed	18 (2.4)	14 (1.9)