Evidence Hub

Audio-based digital biomarkers in diagnosing and managing respiratory diseases: a systematic review and bibliometric analysis

Vivianne Landry, Jessica Matschek, R. Pang, Meghana Munipalle, K. Tan, J. Boruff, N. Y. Li-Jessen

European Respiratory Review, 2025

18 citations

Abstract

Advances in wearable sensors and artificial intelligence have greatly enhanced the potential of digitised audio biomarkers for disease diagnostics and monitoring. In respiratory care, evidence supporting their clinical use remains fragmented and inconclusive. This study aimed to assess the current research landscape of digital audio biomarkers in respiratory medicine through a bibliometric analysis and systematic review (PROSPERO CRD 42022336730). MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane Library and CINAHL were searched for references indexed up to 9 April 2024. Eligible studies evaluated the accuracy of sound analysis for diagnosing and managing obstructive (asthma and COPD) or infectious respiratory diseases, excluding COVID-19. A narrative synthesis was conducted, and the QUADAS-2 tool was used to assess study quality and risk of bias. Of 14 180 studies, 81 were included. Bibliometric analysis identified fundamental (e.g. “diagnostic accuracy”+“machine learning”) and emerging (e.g. “developing countries”) themes. Despite methodological heterogeneity, audio biomarkers generally achieved moderate (60–79%) to high (80–100%) accuracies. 80% of studies (eight out of ten) reported high sensitivities and specificities for asthma diagnosis, 78% (seven out of nine) reported high sensitivities and 56% (five out of nine) reported high specificities for COPD, and 64% (seven out of eleven) reported high sensitivity or specificity values for pneumonia diagnosis. Breathing and coughing were the most…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a systematic review. Its evidence level is 1 of 5 (Highest · pooled evidence). Pooled evidence from several studies sits at the top of the evidence pyramid.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free