Audiology & neuro-otology · 2019
A Smartphone-Based Weber Test May Discriminate between a Conductive and a Sensorineural Hearing Loss.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Ungar Omer J, Handzel Ophir, Cavel Oren, Oron Yahav
Аннотация
OBJECTIVE: The aim of this paper was to compare the accuracy of a smartphone-based Weber test (SPWT) with the traditional tuning fork Weber test (TFWT) in identifying and differentiating between sensorineural hearing loss (SNHL) and conductive hearing loss (CHL).
STUDY DESIGN: We conducted a prospective, noncontrolled clinical study.
METHODS: Sixty patients referred to the emergency department due to unilateral hearing loss (HL) were enrolled. They were asked to press a single uncovered smartphone on their forehead and conduct a Weber test by means of the smartphone's vibration application. The results were compared to the TFWT.
RESULTS: Twenty-six (43%) patients were diagnosed with a SNHL, and 34 (57%) with a CHL. The SPWT was in agreement with the TFWT (at a frequency of 512 Hz) in 55 (92%) patients. The sensitivity and specificity of the TFWT were 84.6 and 94.1%, respectively. The sensitivity and specificity of the SPWT were 76.9 and 97.1%, respectively.
CONCLUSION: SPWT can serve as an auxiliary diagnostic tool in the absence of a 512-Hz tuning fork to assist in the identification of the type of HL and to potentially hasten the diagnosis and provision of treatment when indicated.
STUDY DESIGN: We conducted a prospective, noncontrolled clinical study.
METHODS: Sixty patients referred to the emergency department due to unilateral hearing loss (HL) were enrolled. They were asked to press a single uncovered smartphone on their forehead and conduct a Weber test by means of the smartphone's vibration application. The results were compared to the TFWT.
RESULTS: Twenty-six (43%) patients were diagnosed with a SNHL, and 34 (57%) with a CHL. The SPWT was in agreement with the TFWT (at a frequency of 512 Hz) in 55 (92%) patients. The sensitivity and specificity of the TFWT were 84.6 and 94.1%, respectively. The sensitivity and specificity of the SPWT were 76.9 and 97.1%, respectively.
CONCLUSION: SPWT can serve as an auxiliary diagnostic tool in the absence of a 512-Hz tuning fork to assist in the identification of the type of HL and to potentially hasten the diagnosis and provision of treatment when indicated.