Clinical otolaryngology : official journal of ENT-UK ; official journal of Netherlands Society for Oto-Rhino-Laryngology & Cervico-Facial Surgery · 2017
A cross-sectional evaluation of the validity of a smartphone otoscopy device in screening for ear disease in Nepal.
Оценочное исследованиеСтатьяНазвание 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.
Mandavia R, Lapa T, Smith M, Bhutta M F
Аннотация
OBJECTIVES: Hearing loss is a neglected international health problem. The greatest burden of ear disease is in low-income countries where there is also a lack of resources. In this context, screening for otological disease may be worthwhile. Cupris© has developed an otoscopy device that offers the possibility of low-cost mass screening in remote communities. We evaluated the validity of this device in diagnosing ear disease and in determining whether referral to an ENT centre is warranted.
DESIGN: Cross-sectional study.
SETTING: Outpatient clinic, Nepal.
PARTICIPANTS: All adults and children were invited to take part over a 2-day period. The Cupris© device was used to record participants otological history and examination. Stored history and images were assessed in the United Kingdom by a Consultant-grade ENT Surgeon, who provided a diagnosis and decided whether referral to an ENT centre was warranted. After screening with the Cupris© device, participants were immediately assessed by a UK trained ENT Consultant Surgeon using a standard otoscope ("standard assessment"). A diagnosis was recorded for each participant and a decision was made as to whether referral to an ENT centre was warranted.
OUTCOMES: Concordance in primary diagnosis (analysed per ear) and concordance in the decision to refer (analysed per patient). Cohen's kappa coefficient for inter-rater agreement in diagnosis.
RESULTS: Fifty-six patients agreed to participate. In four patients, the quality of video recorded precluded a diagnosis or management plan. These patients were excluded from subsequent analysis, leaving 52 patients for analysis. The same diagnosis was reached for 99 of 104 ears when comparing the Cupris© device to standard assessment (95% concordance), with Cohen's kappa coefficient of 0.89. The decision as to whether a patient should be referred to an ENT centre for further assessment was the same for all 52 participants when comparing the Cupris© device to standard assessment.
CONCLUSIONS: When compared to standard assessment, the Cupris© device is a valid tool for the diagnosis of ear disease and decision for onward referral. It shows considerable promise for use by trained non-medical workers, as a low-cost and portable tool to screen for ear disease in remote settings, particularly in low- and middle-income countries.
DESIGN: Cross-sectional study.
SETTING: Outpatient clinic, Nepal.
PARTICIPANTS: All adults and children were invited to take part over a 2-day period. The Cupris© device was used to record participants otological history and examination. Stored history and images were assessed in the United Kingdom by a Consultant-grade ENT Surgeon, who provided a diagnosis and decided whether referral to an ENT centre was warranted. After screening with the Cupris© device, participants were immediately assessed by a UK trained ENT Consultant Surgeon using a standard otoscope ("standard assessment"). A diagnosis was recorded for each participant and a decision was made as to whether referral to an ENT centre was warranted.
OUTCOMES: Concordance in primary diagnosis (analysed per ear) and concordance in the decision to refer (analysed per patient). Cohen's kappa coefficient for inter-rater agreement in diagnosis.
RESULTS: Fifty-six patients agreed to participate. In four patients, the quality of video recorded precluded a diagnosis or management plan. These patients were excluded from subsequent analysis, leaving 52 patients for analysis. The same diagnosis was reached for 99 of 104 ears when comparing the Cupris© device to standard assessment (95% concordance), with Cohen's kappa coefficient of 0.89. The decision as to whether a patient should be referred to an ENT centre for further assessment was the same for all 52 participants when comparing the Cupris© device to standard assessment.
CONCLUSIONS: When compared to standard assessment, the Cupris© device is a valid tool for the diagnosis of ear disease and decision for onward referral. It shows considerable promise for use by trained non-medical workers, as a low-cost and portable tool to screen for ear disease in remote settings, particularly in low- and middle-income countries.