Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29498954›Full record

ArticleEar and hearing

A Retrospective Estimate of Ear Disease Detection Using the "Red Flags" in a Clinical Sample.

Niall A M Klyn, Samantha Kleindienst Robler, Razan Alfakir, Donald W Nielsen, James W Griffith, Deborah L Carlson, Larry Lundy, Sumitrajit Dhar, David A Zapala

Abstract readEvaluation Study
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Ear and hearing. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Audiologic Assessment.Seminars in hearing · 2022
    Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

9 authors.

Niall A M KlynRoxelyn and Richard Pepper Department of Communication Sciences and Disorders, Northwestern University, Evanston, Illinois, USA.
Samantha Kleindienst RoblerDivision of Audiology, Mayo Clinic, Scottsdale, Arizona, USA.
Razan AlfakirDepartment of Otorhinolaryngology, Mayo Clinic, Jacksonville, Florida, USA.
Donald W NielsenDon Nielsen Consulting, LLC, Dublin, Ohio, USA.
James W GriffithDepartment of Medical Social Science, Northwestern University, Chicago, Illinois, USA.
Deborah L CarlsonDepartment of Otolaryngology, University of Texas Medical Branch, Galveston, Texas, USA.
Larry LundyDepartment of Otorhinolaryngology, Mayo Clinic, Jacksonville, Florida, USA.
Sumitrajit DharRoxelyn and Richard Pepper Department of Communication Sciences and Disorders, Northwestern University, Evanston, Illinois, USA.
David A ZapalaDepartment of Otorhinolaryngology, Mayo Clinic, Jacksonville, Florida, USA.

Funding

Can Consumers and Audiologists Detect Ear Disease Prior to Hearing Aid Use?R33DC013115 · NIDCD · NORTHWESTERN UNIVERSITY · PI DHAR, SUMITRAJIT, ZAPALA, DAVID · 2015 to 2017
$1.8M
Can Consumers and Audiologists Detect Ear Disease Prior to Hearing Aid Use?R21DC013115 · NIDCD · NORTHWESTERN UNIVERSITY · PI DHAR, SUMITRAJIT, ZAPALA, DAVID · 2013 to 2014
$442k
NIDCD NIH HHS R21 DC013115NIDCD NIH HHS R33 DC013115
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesThe purpose of this study was to evaluate the specificity and sensitivity of two red flag protocols in detecting ear diseases associated with changes in hearing.

designThe presence of red-flag symptoms was determined in a chart review of 307 adult patients from the Mayo Clinic Florida Departments of Otorhinolaryngology and Audiology. Participants formed a convenience sample recruited for a separate study. Neurotologist diagnosis was the criterion for comparisons.

resultsOf the 251 patient files retained for analysis, 191 had one or more targeted diseases and 60 had age- or noise-related hearing loss. Food and Drug Administration red flags sensitivity was 91% (confidence interval [CI], 86 to 95%) and specificity was 72% (CI, 59 to 83%). American Academy of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery red flags sensitivity was 98% (CI, 95 to 99%) and specificity was 20% (CI, 11 to 32%).

conclusionsStakeholders must determine which diseases are meaningful contraindications for hearing aid use and whether these red-flag protocols have acceptable levels of sensitivity and specificity. As direct-to-consumer models of hearing devices increase, a disease detection method that does not require provider intercession would be useful.

Indexed as

ContraindicationsHearing AidsHearing TestsAdultAgedCost-Benefit AnalysisFemaleGovernment RegulationHearing LossHumansMaleMass ScreeningMiddle AgedRetrospective StudiesSensitivity and SpecificityUnited States

Identifiers

PMID29498954
PMCPMC6105532

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.