Journal of speech, language, and hearing research : JSLHR · 2017
The Impact of Clinical History on the Threshold Estimation of Auditory Brainstem Response Results for Infants.
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.
Zaitoun Maha, Cumming Steven, Purcell Alison, O'Brien Katie
Аннотация
PURPOSE: This study assesses the impact of patient clinical history on audiologists' performance when interpreting auditory brainstem response (ABR) results.
METHOD: Fourteen audiologists' accuracy in estimating hearing threshold for 16 infants through interpretation of ABR traces was compared on 2 occasions at least 5 months apart. On the 1st occasion, ABR traces were presented to the audiologists with no clinical information except for the age of the child. On the 2nd occasion, audiologists were given a full clinical history for the ABR cases.
RESULTS: The addition of clinical history information had no statistically significant impact on sensitivity, specificity, or accuracy of diagnosis. Although the mean numbers of true-negative and true-positive diagnoses were higher when audiologists were given clinical information, the difference was again not statistically significant.
CONCLUSION: This study suggests that if there are circumstances in which case material is incomplete or unavailable, audiologists have no cause for concern regarding the accuracy of their interpretation of ABR traces. In a clinical manner, this may help audiologists with large caseloads or audiologists who need to provide a diagnosis of hearing loss in a short time by allowing them to focus on conducting ABR without the need for case history information.
METHOD: Fourteen audiologists' accuracy in estimating hearing threshold for 16 infants through interpretation of ABR traces was compared on 2 occasions at least 5 months apart. On the 1st occasion, ABR traces were presented to the audiologists with no clinical information except for the age of the child. On the 2nd occasion, audiologists were given a full clinical history for the ABR cases.
RESULTS: The addition of clinical history information had no statistically significant impact on sensitivity, specificity, or accuracy of diagnosis. Although the mean numbers of true-negative and true-positive diagnoses were higher when audiologists were given clinical information, the difference was again not statistically significant.
CONCLUSION: This study suggests that if there are circumstances in which case material is incomplete or unavailable, audiologists have no cause for concern regarding the accuracy of their interpretation of ABR traces. In a clinical manner, this may help audiologists with large caseloads or audiologists who need to provide a diagnosis of hearing loss in a short time by allowing them to focus on conducting ABR without the need for case history information.