ArticleAmerican journal of translational research2026
Complementary diagnostic value of tympanometry and tubomanometry in Eustachian tube dysfunction: a retrospective study with serial strategy optimization.
Article in American journal of translational research, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundClinical diagnosis of Eustachian tube dysfunction (ETD) lacks an objective gold standard. Tympanometry (assessed by Type Y tympanogram incidence) and tubomanometry (TMM) are widely used, but their comparative diagnostic performance and combined value remain controversial.
objectiveTo retrospectively evaluate and compare the diagnostic accuracy and agreement of tympanometry and TMM for ETD, using clinical comprehensive diagnosis as the reference, and to explore the clinical utility of serial and parallel diagnostic strategies.
methodsThis single-center retrospective study consecutively enrolled 165 patients with ear symptoms who underwent both tests (January 2022-January 2025). Clinical comprehensive diagnosis (blinded to test results) served as the gold standard. Sensitivity, specificity, predictive values, accuracy, area under the ROC curve (AUC), and Cohen's Kappa were calculated. Serial (both tests positive) and parallel (either test positive) strategies were evaluated.
resultsETD was diagnosed in 75/165 patients (45.5%). The AUC for TMM was 0.875 (95% CI: 0.825-0.925), higher than that for tympanometry (0.836, 95% CI: 0.786-0.886), but the difference was not statistically significant (P = 0.375). Tympanometry showed very high sensitivity (0.987) and NPV (0.985) but low specificity (0.711); TMM had higher specificity (0.778) and PPV (0.765). Agreement between the two methods was moderate (Kappa = 0.475, overall agreement 73.9%). Among combined strategies, the serial approach yielded the highest specificity (0.922) and accuracy (0.891), while the parallel approach demonstrated high sensitivity suitable for screening but with low specificity (0.567).
conclusionTympanometry and TMM exhibit complementary diagnostic characteristics: tympanometry is an excellent screening tool for ruling out ETD, whereas TMM is more reliable for confirmation. The moderate agreement suggests they capture different pathophysiological dimensions of ETD. The serial strategy optimizes diagnostic specificity and accuracy, supporting its use when confirmation is required.
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.