Brazilian journal of otorhinolaryngology · 2021
Smartphone-enabled otoscopy: method evaluation in clinical practice.
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.
Kravchychyn Fernanda Dal Bem, Meurer Ana Taíse de Oliveira, Nogueira Maria Helena Salgado Delamain Pupo, Balieiro Fernando Oto, Balsalobre Fernando de Andrade, Barauna Filho Iulo Sérgio, Stamm Aldo Eden Cassol
Аннотация
OBJECTIVE: To assess the diagnostic agreement between smartphone-enabled otoscopy and rigid otoendoscopy in tympanic membrane and middle ear diseases.
METHODS: A cross-sectional study was carried out to analyze otoscopies in patients seen at a general otorhinolaryngology (ORL) outpatient clinic, from June to December 2019. Eighty-three images of patients obtained from otoscopies performed through a smartphone device and a rigid endoscope were included, recorded, and stored for further analysis. The images were first analyzed by an experienced otologist, who assigned his diagnostic impression (defined as the gold standard) on each of the images. After this analysis, the images were displayed to a group of secondary raters (an experienced otorhinolaryngologist, a second-year resident in ORL, and a general practitioner). A questionnaire was applied related to each image.
RESULTS: There was high agreement between the smartphone device and the otoendoscopy images for all professionals, with a Kappa coefficient of 0.97 (p < 0.001). The smartphone device showed a diagnostic sensitivity of 81.1% and a specificity of 71.1%. As for the otoendoscopy, it showed a sensitivity of 84.7% and a specificity of 72.4%. The image classification as "2 = Good" was the most frequent one, with 34.9% for otoendoscopy and 31.6% for the smartphone device.
CONCLUSION: There was a high diagnostic agreement between smartphone device-guided otoscopy and the rigid otoendoscopy, demonstrating the feasibility of using this device in clinical practice.
METHODS: A cross-sectional study was carried out to analyze otoscopies in patients seen at a general otorhinolaryngology (ORL) outpatient clinic, from June to December 2019. Eighty-three images of patients obtained from otoscopies performed through a smartphone device and a rigid endoscope were included, recorded, and stored for further analysis. The images were first analyzed by an experienced otologist, who assigned his diagnostic impression (defined as the gold standard) on each of the images. After this analysis, the images were displayed to a group of secondary raters (an experienced otorhinolaryngologist, a second-year resident in ORL, and a general practitioner). A questionnaire was applied related to each image.
RESULTS: There was high agreement between the smartphone device and the otoendoscopy images for all professionals, with a Kappa coefficient of 0.97 (p < 0.001). The smartphone device showed a diagnostic sensitivity of 81.1% and a specificity of 71.1%. As for the otoendoscopy, it showed a sensitivity of 84.7% and a specificity of 72.4%. The image classification as "2 = Good" was the most frequent one, with 34.9% for otoendoscopy and 31.6% for the smartphone device.
CONCLUSION: There was a high diagnostic agreement between smartphone device-guided otoscopy and the rigid otoendoscopy, demonstrating the feasibility of using this device in clinical practice.