University of Exeter
Browse

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

Download (1.2 MB)
journal contribution
posted on 2025-07-31, 18:18 authored by OC Ukoumunne, C Hyde, M Ozolins, Z Zhelev, S Errington, RS Taylor, C Benton, J Moody, L Cocking, J Watson, H Fortnum
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.

Funding

10/63/03

Addenbrookes Hospital, Cambridge University Hospitals Foundation Trust

CCS NHS Trust

National Institute for Health Research (NIHR)

Nottingham University Hospitals National Health Service (NHS) Trust

University of Exeter

University of Nottingham

History

Related Materials

Rights

© Article author(s) (or their employer(s) unless otherwise stated in the text of the article) 2017. All rights reserved. No commercial use is permitted unless otherwise expressly granted. This is an Open Access article distributed in accordance with the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY 4.0) license, which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt and build upon this work, for commercial use, provided the original work is properly cited. See: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/

Notes

This is the final version. Available on open access from BMJ Publishing Group via the DOI in this record

Journal

BMJ Open

Publisher

BMJ Publishing Group

Version

  • Version of Record

Language

en

FCD date

2019-11-29T10:32:45Z

FOA date

2019-11-29T10:37:50Z

Citation

Vol. 7, article e017258

Department

  • Archive

Usage metrics

    University of Exeter

    Categories

    No categories selected

    Keywords

    Licence

    Exports

    RefWorks
    BibTeX
    Ref. manager
    Endnote
    DataCite
    NLM
    DC