ArticleMedical devices (Auckland, N.Z.)2019
An in vitro acoustic analysis and comparison of popular stethoscopes.
Article in Medical devices (Auckland, N.Z.), 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
7 citing papers in PubMed, 17 citations in OpenAlex.
- Exploring Microphone Technologies for Digital Auscultation Devices.Micromachines · 2023Article
- StethAid: A Digital Auscultation Platform for Pediatrics.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Article
- Technical characterisation of digital stethoscopes: towards scalable artificial intelligence-based auscultation.Journal of medical engineering & technology · 2023Article
- Optimized Acoustic Phantom Design for Characterizing Body Sound Sensors.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Article
- The Intelligibility of the Reversed-Stethoscope Technique in Age-Related Hearing Loss.Canadian geriatrics journal : CGJ · 2022Article
- Electronic Stethoscope Filtering Mimics the Perceived Sound Characteristics of Acoustic Stethoscope.IEEE journal of biomedical and health informatics · 2021Article
- Facial Muscle Activity Recognition with Reconfigurable Differential Stethoscope-Microphones.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTo compare the performance of various commercially available stethoscopes using standard acoustic engineering criteria, under recording studio conditions. MATERIALS AND
methodsEighteen stethoscopes (11 acoustic, 7 electronic) were analyzed using standard acoustic analysis techniques under professional recording studio conditions. An organic phantom that accurately simulated chest cavity acoustics was developed. Test sounds were played via a microphone embedded within it and auscultated at its surface by the stethoscopes. Recordings were made through each stethoscope's binaurals and/or downloaded (electronic models). Recordings were analyzed using standard studio techniques and software, including assessing ambient noise (AMB) rejection. Frequency ranges were divided into those corresponding to various standard biological sounds (cardiac, respiratory, and gastrointestinal).
resultsLoudness and AMB rejection: Overall, electronic stethoscopes, when set to a maximum volume, exhibited greater values of perceived loudness compared to acoustic stethoscopes. Significant variation was seen in AMB rejection capability. Frequency detection: Marked variation was also seen, with some stethoscopes performing better for different ranges (eg, cardiac) vs others (eg, gastrointestinal).
conclusionThe acoustic properties of stethoscopes varied considerably in loudness, AMB rejection, and frequency response. Stethoscope choice should take into account clinical conditions to be auscultated and the noise level of the environment.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.