Evaluating the feasibility of a tele-diagnostic auditory brainstem response service in a rural context.
Divhanani Sithi, Samantha M Govender, Thembelihle S Ntuli
PMID 39099283WHAT IT FOUND
Mobile hearing tests from a van gave results similar to in-person infant ABR tests across 80 ears.
A trained community worker set up infants while the audiologist ran tests remotely.
Key findings
01The mobile test and face-to-face test gave similar wave-V results, with a median of 8.1 in both and a strong association between methods.
02For neurological waves I, III and V, the two methods showed no statistically significant difference and strong associations.
03Agreement plots showed almost all points were within the limits of agreement for waves and interpeak latencies.
STILL TO COME
How it was doneWhat they foundWhat it means for SLPs
Read the rest of this summary
You get three full summaries a month, free, and we do not ask for a card. Search, the TL;DRs and your library stay unlimited either way.
What it does not show
The study included only 40 infants (80 ears), so the results may not apply to larger or different populations. The infants were all black African and were tested in three rural clinics, so other settings and groups may differ. Internet connectivity problems occasionally reduced video and audio quality during remote testing. The community health worker placed electrodes and earphones, so setup variability may have affected results.
Declared interests
The research received no specific grant from any funding agency in the public, commercial or not-for-profit sectors.
The easy way to misread this
Do not read this as proof that remote ABR detects hearing loss earlier or improves child outcomes. It only compared test results from two ways of delivering ABR in a small rural sample, and connectivity or setup problems could still affect the service.