2006
DOI: 10.1080/02813430600699997
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Detection of middle-ear fluid in children with spectral gradient acoustic reflectometry: A screening tool for nurses?

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1

Citation Types

1
10
0

Year Published

2007
2007
2019
2019

Publication Types

Select...
7

Relationship

2
5

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 11 publications
(11 citation statements)
references
References 17 publications
(15 reference statements)
1
10
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Sensitivity, specificity, and positive and negative predictive values obtained in this study with second-generation professional and consumer model SG-AR devices were similar and comparable to those reported in the literature [2,[11][12][13][14][15][16]. Newer secondgeneration spectral gradient acoustic reflectometers performed clearly better than old first-generation model.…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 92%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…Sensitivity, specificity, and positive and negative predictive values obtained in this study with second-generation professional and consumer model SG-AR devices were similar and comparable to those reported in the literature [2,[11][12][13][14][15][16]. Newer secondgeneration spectral gradient acoustic reflectometers performed clearly better than old first-generation model.…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 92%
“…AR usually performs best at the ends of the SG-AR degree spectrum, both confirming MEF in grossly fluid-filled ears and ruling out MEF in healthy ears reliably [2,14,15]: positive predictive values (PPV) of 83-88%, negative predictive values (NPV) of 82-83%, specificities of 79-94% and sensitivities 86-94% have been reported. In our recent study [16], SG-AR reached PPV and NPV of 94 and 98%, and specificity and sensitivity of 98 and 87%, respectively, in the hands of nurses in detecting MEF among children. This indicates good performance even without intimate familiarity with the device.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 94%
“…Concerning symptomatic visits, none of the previous studies have investigated the clinical usefulness of tympanometry and SG-AR in primary health care, i.e. the proportion of visits where reliable test results are obtained from both ears of the child [ 4 , 7–11 , 15–17 ]. If tympanometric and/or SG-AR examinations performed by nurses were reliable in excluding AOM, a proportion of the symptomatic children might potentially go home without visiting a physician in the case where the child’s overall condition is normal.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…10,11 Despite the potential advantages of spectral gradient acoustic reflectometry (SGAR) over tympanometry, 10,12 few studies have assessed the diagnostic accuracy of SGAR in the outpatient setting where the method would be of the greatest value. [13][14][15][16] In a prospective study of respiratory infections in children, we directly compared the performance of SGAR and tympanometry in unselected children seen in primary care.…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%