Accuracy of Siemens HearCheck™ Navigator as a Screening Tool for Hearing Loss
Objective: To calculate the accuracy, sensitivity, specificity and positive predictive values of the Siemens HearCheck™ Navigator in detecting hearing loss and to compare values of these parameters when the examination is done in a soundproof booth and in a quiet room. Methods: Design: Analy...
Ausführliche Beschreibung
Gespeichert in:
| Autor*in: |
Generoso T. Abes [verfasserIn] Ma. Rina T. Reyes-Quintos [verfasserIn] Ma. Leah S. Tantoco [verfasserIn] |
|---|
| Format: |
E-Artikel |
|---|---|
| Sprache: |
Englisch |
| Erschienen: |
2011 |
|---|
| Schlagwörter: |
|---|
| Übergeordnetes Werk: |
In: Philippine Journal of Otolaryngology Head and Neck Surgery - Philippine Society of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, Inc., 2019, 26(2011), 1 |
|---|---|
| Übergeordnetes Werk: |
volume:26 ; year:2011 ; number:1 |
| Links: |
Link aufrufen |
|---|
| DOI / URN: |
10.32412/pjohns.v26i1.593 |
|---|
| Katalog-ID: |
DOAJ065811550 |
|---|
| LEADER | 01000caa a22002652 4500 | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| 001 | DOAJ065811550 | ||
| 003 | DE-627 | ||
| 005 | 20230502064656.0 | ||
| 007 | cr uuu---uuuuu | ||
| 008 | 230228s2011 xx |||||o 00| ||eng c | ||
| 024 | 7 | |a 10.32412/pjohns.v26i1.593 |2 doi | |
| 035 | |a (DE-627)DOAJ065811550 | ||
| 035 | |a (DE-599)DOAJc7e04b2ecf46433c86b7c2af6b828dfa | ||
| 040 | |a DE-627 |b ger |c DE-627 |e rakwb | ||
| 041 | |a eng | ||
| 050 | 0 | |a RF1-547 | |
| 100 | 0 | |a Generoso T. Abes |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 245 | 1 | 0 | |a Accuracy of Siemens HearCheck™ Navigator as a Screening Tool for Hearing Loss |
| 264 | 1 | |c 2011 | |
| 336 | |a Text |b txt |2 rdacontent | ||
| 337 | |a Computermedien |b c |2 rdamedia | ||
| 338 | |a Online-Ressource |b cr |2 rdacarrier | ||
| 520 | |a Objective: To calculate the accuracy, sensitivity, specificity and positive predictive values of the Siemens HearCheck™ Navigator in detecting hearing loss and to compare values of these parameters when the examination is done in a soundproof booth and in a quiet room. Methods: Design: Analytical, cross-sectional study Setting: Tertiary Public University Hospital Patients: Patients seen at the Ear Unit of a tertiary public university hospital from June 2009 to August 2010 were tested using the Siemens HearCheck™ Navigator and pure tone audiometry, inside a soundproof audiometry booth and in a quiet room with an ambient noise of 50dB, with a different investigator for each examination. Each ear was treated as a separate subject. Results obtained from the HearCheck™ Navigator were designated as observed values and were classified as “no hearing loss” for green light, and “with hearing loss” for yellow or red lights. Results were compared with pure tone air conduction averages designated as gold standard values. Normal hearing acuity (0-25 dB) was classified as no hearing loss. Pure tone air conduction averages of 26dB and above were classified as “with hearing loss” and were further stratified as mild hearing loss (26-40dB) and moderate or worse hearing loss (<41 dB). Observed and gold standard values were compared and tabulated in a 2x2 table for all levels of hearing loss, mild hearing loss, and moderate or worse hearing loss. Accuracy, sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive values of the Siemens HearCheck™ Navigator inside a soundproof audiometry booth and in a quiet room were determined using pure tone audiometry as the gold standard. Results: 100 patients (200 ears) were tested, with a median age of 43 years old (range 15-75), and an almost equal number of male and female participants (52 males, 48 females). Accuracy rate of the Siemens HearCheck™ Navigator inside the soundproof audiometry booth and in a quiet room were 82.5% and 84% respectively for all levels of hearing loss. Sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive values were similar whether the examination was done inside the soundproof audiometry booth or in a quiet room. These values were notably higher in patients with moderate or worse hearing loss compared to patients with mild hearing loss. Conclusion: The Siemens HearCheck™ Navigator shows potential as an accurate, portable, easy-to-use tool to screen for hearing loss, especially for cases of moderate or worse hearing loss, without the need for soundproof audiometry booths or special training. It is recommended that further studies be done to differentiate degrees of hearing loss, and to evaluate its usefulness in other target populations, including school children and the elderly. Keywords: hearing screening, hearing screening tool, accuracy, hearingloss, HearCheck™ Navigator | ||
| 650 | 4 | |a hearing screening | |
| 650 | 4 | |a hearing screening tool | |
| 650 | 4 | |a accuracy | |
| 650 | 4 | |a hearing loss | |
| 650 | 4 | |a HearCheck™ Navigator | |
| 653 | 0 | |a Otorhinolaryngology | |
| 700 | 0 | |a Ma. Rina T. Reyes-Quintos |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 700 | 0 | |a Ma. Leah S. Tantoco |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 773 | 0 | 8 | |i In |t Philippine Journal of Otolaryngology Head and Neck Surgery |d Philippine Society of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, Inc., 2019 |g 26(2011), 1 |w (DE-627)176063249X |x 20941501 |7 nnns |
| 773 | 1 | 8 | |g volume:26 |g year:2011 |g number:1 |
| 856 | 4 | 0 | |u https://doi.org/10.32412/pjohns.v26i1.593 |z kostenfrei |
| 856 | 4 | 0 | |u https://doaj.org/article/c7e04b2ecf46433c86b7c2af6b828dfa |z kostenfrei |
| 856 | 4 | 0 | |u https://pjohns.pso-hns.org/index.php/pjohns/article/view/593 |z kostenfrei |
| 856 | 4 | 2 | |u https://doaj.org/toc/1908-4889 |y Journal toc |z kostenfrei |
| 856 | 4 | 2 | |u https://doaj.org/toc/2094-1501 |y Journal toc |z kostenfrei |
| 912 | |a GBV_USEFLAG_A | ||
| 912 | |a SYSFLAG_A | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_DOAJ | ||
| 912 | |a SSG-OLC-PHA | ||
| 951 | |a AR | ||
| 952 | |d 26 |j 2011 |e 1 | ||
| author_variant |
g t a gta m r t r q mrtrq m l s t mlst |
|---|---|
| matchkey_str |
article:20941501:2011----::cuayfimnhacekaiaoaacennt |
| hierarchy_sort_str |
2011 |
| callnumber-subject-code |
RF |
| publishDate |
2011 |
| allfields |
10.32412/pjohns.v26i1.593 doi (DE-627)DOAJ065811550 (DE-599)DOAJc7e04b2ecf46433c86b7c2af6b828dfa DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb eng RF1-547 Generoso T. Abes verfasserin aut Accuracy of Siemens HearCheck™ Navigator as a Screening Tool for Hearing Loss 2011 Text txt rdacontent Computermedien c rdamedia Online-Ressource cr rdacarrier Objective: To calculate the accuracy, sensitivity, specificity and positive predictive values of the Siemens HearCheck™ Navigator in detecting hearing loss and to compare values of these parameters when the examination is done in a soundproof booth and in a quiet room. Methods: Design: Analytical, cross-sectional study Setting: Tertiary Public University Hospital Patients: Patients seen at the Ear Unit of a tertiary public university hospital from June 2009 to August 2010 were tested using the Siemens HearCheck™ Navigator and pure tone audiometry, inside a soundproof audiometry booth and in a quiet room with an ambient noise of 50dB, with a different investigator for each examination. Each ear was treated as a separate subject. Results obtained from the HearCheck™ Navigator were designated as observed values and were classified as “no hearing loss” for green light, and “with hearing loss” for yellow or red lights. Results were compared with pure tone air conduction averages designated as gold standard values. Normal hearing acuity (0-25 dB) was classified as no hearing loss. Pure tone air conduction averages of 26dB and above were classified as “with hearing loss” and were further stratified as mild hearing loss (26-40dB) and moderate or worse hearing loss (<41 dB). Observed and gold standard values were compared and tabulated in a 2x2 table for all levels of hearing loss, mild hearing loss, and moderate or worse hearing loss. Accuracy, sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive values of the Siemens HearCheck™ Navigator inside a soundproof audiometry booth and in a quiet room were determined using pure tone audiometry as the gold standard. Results: 100 patients (200 ears) were tested, with a median age of 43 years old (range 15-75), and an almost equal number of male and female participants (52 males, 48 females). Accuracy rate of the Siemens HearCheck™ Navigator inside the soundproof audiometry booth and in a quiet room were 82.5% and 84% respectively for all levels of hearing loss. Sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive values were similar whether the examination was done inside the soundproof audiometry booth or in a quiet room. These values were notably higher in patients with moderate or worse hearing loss compared to patients with mild hearing loss. Conclusion: The Siemens HearCheck™ Navigator shows potential as an accurate, portable, easy-to-use tool to screen for hearing loss, especially for cases of moderate or worse hearing loss, without the need for soundproof audiometry booths or special training. It is recommended that further studies be done to differentiate degrees of hearing loss, and to evaluate its usefulness in other target populations, including school children and the elderly. Keywords: hearing screening, hearing screening tool, accuracy, hearingloss, HearCheck™ Navigator hearing screening hearing screening tool accuracy hearing loss HearCheck™ Navigator Otorhinolaryngology Ma. Rina T. Reyes-Quintos verfasserin aut Ma. Leah S. Tantoco verfasserin aut In Philippine Journal of Otolaryngology Head and Neck Surgery Philippine Society of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, Inc., 2019 26(2011), 1 (DE-627)176063249X 20941501 nnns volume:26 year:2011 number:1 https://doi.org/10.32412/pjohns.v26i1.593 kostenfrei https://doaj.org/article/c7e04b2ecf46433c86b7c2af6b828dfa kostenfrei https://pjohns.pso-hns.org/index.php/pjohns/article/view/593 kostenfrei https://doaj.org/toc/1908-4889 Journal toc kostenfrei https://doaj.org/toc/2094-1501 Journal toc kostenfrei GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_DOAJ SSG-OLC-PHA AR 26 2011 1 |
| spelling |
10.32412/pjohns.v26i1.593 doi (DE-627)DOAJ065811550 (DE-599)DOAJc7e04b2ecf46433c86b7c2af6b828dfa DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb eng RF1-547 Generoso T. Abes verfasserin aut Accuracy of Siemens HearCheck™ Navigator as a Screening Tool for Hearing Loss 2011 Text txt rdacontent Computermedien c rdamedia Online-Ressource cr rdacarrier Objective: To calculate the accuracy, sensitivity, specificity and positive predictive values of the Siemens HearCheck™ Navigator in detecting hearing loss and to compare values of these parameters when the examination is done in a soundproof booth and in a quiet room. Methods: Design: Analytical, cross-sectional study Setting: Tertiary Public University Hospital Patients: Patients seen at the Ear Unit of a tertiary public university hospital from June 2009 to August 2010 were tested using the Siemens HearCheck™ Navigator and pure tone audiometry, inside a soundproof audiometry booth and in a quiet room with an ambient noise of 50dB, with a different investigator for each examination. Each ear was treated as a separate subject. Results obtained from the HearCheck™ Navigator were designated as observed values and were classified as “no hearing loss” for green light, and “with hearing loss” for yellow or red lights. Results were compared with pure tone air conduction averages designated as gold standard values. Normal hearing acuity (0-25 dB) was classified as no hearing loss. Pure tone air conduction averages of 26dB and above were classified as “with hearing loss” and were further stratified as mild hearing loss (26-40dB) and moderate or worse hearing loss (<41 dB). Observed and gold standard values were compared and tabulated in a 2x2 table for all levels of hearing loss, mild hearing loss, and moderate or worse hearing loss. Accuracy, sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive values of the Siemens HearCheck™ Navigator inside a soundproof audiometry booth and in a quiet room were determined using pure tone audiometry as the gold standard. Results: 100 patients (200 ears) were tested, with a median age of 43 years old (range 15-75), and an almost equal number of male and female participants (52 males, 48 females). Accuracy rate of the Siemens HearCheck™ Navigator inside the soundproof audiometry booth and in a quiet room were 82.5% and 84% respectively for all levels of hearing loss. Sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive values were similar whether the examination was done inside the soundproof audiometry booth or in a quiet room. These values were notably higher in patients with moderate or worse hearing loss compared to patients with mild hearing loss. Conclusion: The Siemens HearCheck™ Navigator shows potential as an accurate, portable, easy-to-use tool to screen for hearing loss, especially for cases of moderate or worse hearing loss, without the need for soundproof audiometry booths or special training. It is recommended that further studies be done to differentiate degrees of hearing loss, and to evaluate its usefulness in other target populations, including school children and the elderly. Keywords: hearing screening, hearing screening tool, accuracy, hearingloss, HearCheck™ Navigator hearing screening hearing screening tool accuracy hearing loss HearCheck™ Navigator Otorhinolaryngology Ma. Rina T. Reyes-Quintos verfasserin aut Ma. Leah S. Tantoco verfasserin aut In Philippine Journal of Otolaryngology Head and Neck Surgery Philippine Society of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, Inc., 2019 26(2011), 1 (DE-627)176063249X 20941501 nnns volume:26 year:2011 number:1 https://doi.org/10.32412/pjohns.v26i1.593 kostenfrei https://doaj.org/article/c7e04b2ecf46433c86b7c2af6b828dfa kostenfrei https://pjohns.pso-hns.org/index.php/pjohns/article/view/593 kostenfrei https://doaj.org/toc/1908-4889 Journal toc kostenfrei https://doaj.org/toc/2094-1501 Journal toc kostenfrei GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_DOAJ SSG-OLC-PHA AR 26 2011 1 |
| allfields_unstemmed |
10.32412/pjohns.v26i1.593 doi (DE-627)DOAJ065811550 (DE-599)DOAJc7e04b2ecf46433c86b7c2af6b828dfa DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb eng RF1-547 Generoso T. Abes verfasserin aut Accuracy of Siemens HearCheck™ Navigator as a Screening Tool for Hearing Loss 2011 Text txt rdacontent Computermedien c rdamedia Online-Ressource cr rdacarrier Objective: To calculate the accuracy, sensitivity, specificity and positive predictive values of the Siemens HearCheck™ Navigator in detecting hearing loss and to compare values of these parameters when the examination is done in a soundproof booth and in a quiet room. Methods: Design: Analytical, cross-sectional study Setting: Tertiary Public University Hospital Patients: Patients seen at the Ear Unit of a tertiary public university hospital from June 2009 to August 2010 were tested using the Siemens HearCheck™ Navigator and pure tone audiometry, inside a soundproof audiometry booth and in a quiet room with an ambient noise of 50dB, with a different investigator for each examination. Each ear was treated as a separate subject. Results obtained from the HearCheck™ Navigator were designated as observed values and were classified as “no hearing loss” for green light, and “with hearing loss” for yellow or red lights. Results were compared with pure tone air conduction averages designated as gold standard values. Normal hearing acuity (0-25 dB) was classified as no hearing loss. Pure tone air conduction averages of 26dB and above were classified as “with hearing loss” and were further stratified as mild hearing loss (26-40dB) and moderate or worse hearing loss (<41 dB). Observed and gold standard values were compared and tabulated in a 2x2 table for all levels of hearing loss, mild hearing loss, and moderate or worse hearing loss. Accuracy, sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive values of the Siemens HearCheck™ Navigator inside a soundproof audiometry booth and in a quiet room were determined using pure tone audiometry as the gold standard. Results: 100 patients (200 ears) were tested, with a median age of 43 years old (range 15-75), and an almost equal number of male and female participants (52 males, 48 females). Accuracy rate of the Siemens HearCheck™ Navigator inside the soundproof audiometry booth and in a quiet room were 82.5% and 84% respectively for all levels of hearing loss. Sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive values were similar whether the examination was done inside the soundproof audiometry booth or in a quiet room. These values were notably higher in patients with moderate or worse hearing loss compared to patients with mild hearing loss. Conclusion: The Siemens HearCheck™ Navigator shows potential as an accurate, portable, easy-to-use tool to screen for hearing loss, especially for cases of moderate or worse hearing loss, without the need for soundproof audiometry booths or special training. It is recommended that further studies be done to differentiate degrees of hearing loss, and to evaluate its usefulness in other target populations, including school children and the elderly. Keywords: hearing screening, hearing screening tool, accuracy, hearingloss, HearCheck™ Navigator hearing screening hearing screening tool accuracy hearing loss HearCheck™ Navigator Otorhinolaryngology Ma. Rina T. Reyes-Quintos verfasserin aut Ma. Leah S. Tantoco verfasserin aut In Philippine Journal of Otolaryngology Head and Neck Surgery Philippine Society of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, Inc., 2019 26(2011), 1 (DE-627)176063249X 20941501 nnns volume:26 year:2011 number:1 https://doi.org/10.32412/pjohns.v26i1.593 kostenfrei https://doaj.org/article/c7e04b2ecf46433c86b7c2af6b828dfa kostenfrei https://pjohns.pso-hns.org/index.php/pjohns/article/view/593 kostenfrei https://doaj.org/toc/1908-4889 Journal toc kostenfrei https://doaj.org/toc/2094-1501 Journal toc kostenfrei GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_DOAJ SSG-OLC-PHA AR 26 2011 1 |
| allfieldsGer |
10.32412/pjohns.v26i1.593 doi (DE-627)DOAJ065811550 (DE-599)DOAJc7e04b2ecf46433c86b7c2af6b828dfa DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb eng RF1-547 Generoso T. Abes verfasserin aut Accuracy of Siemens HearCheck™ Navigator as a Screening Tool for Hearing Loss 2011 Text txt rdacontent Computermedien c rdamedia Online-Ressource cr rdacarrier Objective: To calculate the accuracy, sensitivity, specificity and positive predictive values of the Siemens HearCheck™ Navigator in detecting hearing loss and to compare values of these parameters when the examination is done in a soundproof booth and in a quiet room. Methods: Design: Analytical, cross-sectional study Setting: Tertiary Public University Hospital Patients: Patients seen at the Ear Unit of a tertiary public university hospital from June 2009 to August 2010 were tested using the Siemens HearCheck™ Navigator and pure tone audiometry, inside a soundproof audiometry booth and in a quiet room with an ambient noise of 50dB, with a different investigator for each examination. Each ear was treated as a separate subject. Results obtained from the HearCheck™ Navigator were designated as observed values and were classified as “no hearing loss” for green light, and “with hearing loss” for yellow or red lights. Results were compared with pure tone air conduction averages designated as gold standard values. Normal hearing acuity (0-25 dB) was classified as no hearing loss. Pure tone air conduction averages of 26dB and above were classified as “with hearing loss” and were further stratified as mild hearing loss (26-40dB) and moderate or worse hearing loss (<41 dB). Observed and gold standard values were compared and tabulated in a 2x2 table for all levels of hearing loss, mild hearing loss, and moderate or worse hearing loss. Accuracy, sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive values of the Siemens HearCheck™ Navigator inside a soundproof audiometry booth and in a quiet room were determined using pure tone audiometry as the gold standard. Results: 100 patients (200 ears) were tested, with a median age of 43 years old (range 15-75), and an almost equal number of male and female participants (52 males, 48 females). Accuracy rate of the Siemens HearCheck™ Navigator inside the soundproof audiometry booth and in a quiet room were 82.5% and 84% respectively for all levels of hearing loss. Sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive values were similar whether the examination was done inside the soundproof audiometry booth or in a quiet room. These values were notably higher in patients with moderate or worse hearing loss compared to patients with mild hearing loss. Conclusion: The Siemens HearCheck™ Navigator shows potential as an accurate, portable, easy-to-use tool to screen for hearing loss, especially for cases of moderate or worse hearing loss, without the need for soundproof audiometry booths or special training. It is recommended that further studies be done to differentiate degrees of hearing loss, and to evaluate its usefulness in other target populations, including school children and the elderly. Keywords: hearing screening, hearing screening tool, accuracy, hearingloss, HearCheck™ Navigator hearing screening hearing screening tool accuracy hearing loss HearCheck™ Navigator Otorhinolaryngology Ma. Rina T. Reyes-Quintos verfasserin aut Ma. Leah S. Tantoco verfasserin aut In Philippine Journal of Otolaryngology Head and Neck Surgery Philippine Society of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, Inc., 2019 26(2011), 1 (DE-627)176063249X 20941501 nnns volume:26 year:2011 number:1 https://doi.org/10.32412/pjohns.v26i1.593 kostenfrei https://doaj.org/article/c7e04b2ecf46433c86b7c2af6b828dfa kostenfrei https://pjohns.pso-hns.org/index.php/pjohns/article/view/593 kostenfrei https://doaj.org/toc/1908-4889 Journal toc kostenfrei https://doaj.org/toc/2094-1501 Journal toc kostenfrei GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_DOAJ SSG-OLC-PHA AR 26 2011 1 |
| allfieldsSound |
10.32412/pjohns.v26i1.593 doi (DE-627)DOAJ065811550 (DE-599)DOAJc7e04b2ecf46433c86b7c2af6b828dfa DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb eng RF1-547 Generoso T. Abes verfasserin aut Accuracy of Siemens HearCheck™ Navigator as a Screening Tool for Hearing Loss 2011 Text txt rdacontent Computermedien c rdamedia Online-Ressource cr rdacarrier Objective: To calculate the accuracy, sensitivity, specificity and positive predictive values of the Siemens HearCheck™ Navigator in detecting hearing loss and to compare values of these parameters when the examination is done in a soundproof booth and in a quiet room. Methods: Design: Analytical, cross-sectional study Setting: Tertiary Public University Hospital Patients: Patients seen at the Ear Unit of a tertiary public university hospital from June 2009 to August 2010 were tested using the Siemens HearCheck™ Navigator and pure tone audiometry, inside a soundproof audiometry booth and in a quiet room with an ambient noise of 50dB, with a different investigator for each examination. Each ear was treated as a separate subject. Results obtained from the HearCheck™ Navigator were designated as observed values and were classified as “no hearing loss” for green light, and “with hearing loss” for yellow or red lights. Results were compared with pure tone air conduction averages designated as gold standard values. Normal hearing acuity (0-25 dB) was classified as no hearing loss. Pure tone air conduction averages of 26dB and above were classified as “with hearing loss” and were further stratified as mild hearing loss (26-40dB) and moderate or worse hearing loss (<41 dB). Observed and gold standard values were compared and tabulated in a 2x2 table for all levels of hearing loss, mild hearing loss, and moderate or worse hearing loss. Accuracy, sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive values of the Siemens HearCheck™ Navigator inside a soundproof audiometry booth and in a quiet room were determined using pure tone audiometry as the gold standard. Results: 100 patients (200 ears) were tested, with a median age of 43 years old (range 15-75), and an almost equal number of male and female participants (52 males, 48 females). Accuracy rate of the Siemens HearCheck™ Navigator inside the soundproof audiometry booth and in a quiet room were 82.5% and 84% respectively for all levels of hearing loss. Sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive values were similar whether the examination was done inside the soundproof audiometry booth or in a quiet room. These values were notably higher in patients with moderate or worse hearing loss compared to patients with mild hearing loss. Conclusion: The Siemens HearCheck™ Navigator shows potential as an accurate, portable, easy-to-use tool to screen for hearing loss, especially for cases of moderate or worse hearing loss, without the need for soundproof audiometry booths or special training. It is recommended that further studies be done to differentiate degrees of hearing loss, and to evaluate its usefulness in other target populations, including school children and the elderly. Keywords: hearing screening, hearing screening tool, accuracy, hearingloss, HearCheck™ Navigator hearing screening hearing screening tool accuracy hearing loss HearCheck™ Navigator Otorhinolaryngology Ma. Rina T. Reyes-Quintos verfasserin aut Ma. Leah S. Tantoco verfasserin aut In Philippine Journal of Otolaryngology Head and Neck Surgery Philippine Society of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, Inc., 2019 26(2011), 1 (DE-627)176063249X 20941501 nnns volume:26 year:2011 number:1 https://doi.org/10.32412/pjohns.v26i1.593 kostenfrei https://doaj.org/article/c7e04b2ecf46433c86b7c2af6b828dfa kostenfrei https://pjohns.pso-hns.org/index.php/pjohns/article/view/593 kostenfrei https://doaj.org/toc/1908-4889 Journal toc kostenfrei https://doaj.org/toc/2094-1501 Journal toc kostenfrei GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_DOAJ SSG-OLC-PHA AR 26 2011 1 |
| language |
English |
| source |
In Philippine Journal of Otolaryngology Head and Neck Surgery 26(2011), 1 volume:26 year:2011 number:1 |
| sourceStr |
In Philippine Journal of Otolaryngology Head and Neck Surgery 26(2011), 1 volume:26 year:2011 number:1 |
| format_phy_str_mv |
Article |
| institution |
findex.gbv.de |
| topic_facet |
hearing screening hearing screening tool accuracy hearing loss HearCheck™ Navigator Otorhinolaryngology |
| isfreeaccess_bool |
true |
| container_title |
Philippine Journal of Otolaryngology Head and Neck Surgery |
| authorswithroles_txt_mv |
Generoso T. Abes @@aut@@ Ma. Rina T. Reyes-Quintos @@aut@@ Ma. Leah S. Tantoco @@aut@@ |
| publishDateDaySort_date |
2011-01-01T00:00:00Z |
| hierarchy_top_id |
176063249X |
| id |
DOAJ065811550 |
| language_de |
englisch |
| fullrecord |
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><collection xmlns="http://www.loc.gov/MARC21/slim"><record><leader>01000caa a22002652 4500</leader><controlfield tag="001">DOAJ065811550</controlfield><controlfield tag="003">DE-627</controlfield><controlfield tag="005">20230502064656.0</controlfield><controlfield tag="007">cr uuu---uuuuu</controlfield><controlfield tag="008">230228s2011 xx |||||o 00| ||eng c</controlfield><datafield tag="024" ind1="7" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">10.32412/pjohns.v26i1.593</subfield><subfield code="2">doi</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(DE-627)DOAJ065811550</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(DE-599)DOAJc7e04b2ecf46433c86b7c2af6b828dfa</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="040" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">DE-627</subfield><subfield code="b">ger</subfield><subfield code="c">DE-627</subfield><subfield code="e">rakwb</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="041" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">eng</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="050" ind1=" " ind2="0"><subfield code="a">RF1-547</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="100" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Generoso T. Abes</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="245" ind1="1" ind2="0"><subfield code="a">Accuracy of Siemens HearCheck™ Navigator as a Screening Tool for Hearing Loss</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="264" ind1=" " ind2="1"><subfield code="c">2011</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="336" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Text</subfield><subfield code="b">txt</subfield><subfield code="2">rdacontent</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="337" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Computermedien</subfield><subfield code="b">c</subfield><subfield code="2">rdamedia</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="338" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Online-Ressource</subfield><subfield code="b">cr</subfield><subfield code="2">rdacarrier</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="520" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Objective: To calculate the accuracy, sensitivity, specificity and positive predictive values of the Siemens HearCheck™ Navigator in detecting hearing loss and to compare values of these parameters when the examination is done in a soundproof booth and in a quiet room. Methods: Design: Analytical, cross-sectional study Setting: Tertiary Public University Hospital Patients: Patients seen at the Ear Unit of a tertiary public university hospital from June 2009 to August 2010 were tested using the Siemens HearCheck™ Navigator and pure tone audiometry, inside a soundproof audiometry booth and in a quiet room with an ambient noise of 50dB, with a different investigator for each examination. Each ear was treated as a separate subject. Results obtained from the HearCheck™ Navigator were designated as observed values and were classified as “no hearing loss” for green light, and “with hearing loss” for yellow or red lights. Results were compared with pure tone air conduction averages designated as gold standard values. Normal hearing acuity (0-25 dB) was classified as no hearing loss. Pure tone air conduction averages of 26dB and above were classified as “with hearing loss” and were further stratified as mild hearing loss (26-40dB) and moderate or worse hearing loss (<41 dB). Observed and gold standard values were compared and tabulated in a 2x2 table for all levels of hearing loss, mild hearing loss, and moderate or worse hearing loss. Accuracy, sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive values of the Siemens HearCheck™ Navigator inside a soundproof audiometry booth and in a quiet room were determined using pure tone audiometry as the gold standard. Results: 100 patients (200 ears) were tested, with a median age of 43 years old (range 15-75), and an almost equal number of male and female participants (52 males, 48 females). Accuracy rate of the Siemens HearCheck™ Navigator inside the soundproof audiometry booth and in a quiet room were 82.5% and 84% respectively for all levels of hearing loss. Sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive values were similar whether the examination was done inside the soundproof audiometry booth or in a quiet room. These values were notably higher in patients with moderate or worse hearing loss compared to patients with mild hearing loss. Conclusion: The Siemens HearCheck™ Navigator shows potential as an accurate, portable, easy-to-use tool to screen for hearing loss, especially for cases of moderate or worse hearing loss, without the need for soundproof audiometry booths or special training. It is recommended that further studies be done to differentiate degrees of hearing loss, and to evaluate its usefulness in other target populations, including school children and the elderly. Keywords: hearing screening, hearing screening tool, accuracy, hearingloss, HearCheck™ Navigator</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">hearing screening</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">hearing screening tool</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">accuracy</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">hearing loss</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">HearCheck™ Navigator</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="653" ind1=" " ind2="0"><subfield code="a">Otorhinolaryngology</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Ma. Rina T. Reyes-Quintos</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Ma. Leah S. Tantoco</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="773" ind1="0" ind2="8"><subfield code="i">In</subfield><subfield code="t">Philippine Journal of Otolaryngology Head and Neck Surgery</subfield><subfield code="d">Philippine Society of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, Inc., 2019</subfield><subfield code="g">26(2011), 1</subfield><subfield code="w">(DE-627)176063249X</subfield><subfield code="x">20941501</subfield><subfield code="7">nnns</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="773" ind1="1" ind2="8"><subfield code="g">volume:26</subfield><subfield code="g">year:2011</subfield><subfield code="g">number:1</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="0"><subfield code="u">https://doi.org/10.32412/pjohns.v26i1.593</subfield><subfield code="z">kostenfrei</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="0"><subfield code="u">https://doaj.org/article/c7e04b2ecf46433c86b7c2af6b828dfa</subfield><subfield code="z">kostenfrei</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="0"><subfield code="u">https://pjohns.pso-hns.org/index.php/pjohns/article/view/593</subfield><subfield code="z">kostenfrei</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="2"><subfield code="u">https://doaj.org/toc/1908-4889</subfield><subfield code="y">Journal toc</subfield><subfield code="z">kostenfrei</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="2"><subfield code="u">https://doaj.org/toc/2094-1501</subfield><subfield code="y">Journal toc</subfield><subfield code="z">kostenfrei</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_USEFLAG_A</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">SYSFLAG_A</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_DOAJ</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">SSG-OLC-PHA</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="951" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">AR</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="952" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="d">26</subfield><subfield code="j">2011</subfield><subfield code="e">1</subfield></datafield></record></collection>
|
| callnumber-first |
R - Medicine |
| author |
Generoso T. Abes |
| spellingShingle |
Generoso T. Abes misc RF1-547 misc hearing screening misc hearing screening tool misc accuracy misc hearing loss misc HearCheck™ Navigator misc Otorhinolaryngology Accuracy of Siemens HearCheck™ Navigator as a Screening Tool for Hearing Loss |
| authorStr |
Generoso T. Abes |
| ppnlink_with_tag_str_mv |
@@773@@(DE-627)176063249X |
| format |
electronic Article |
| delete_txt_mv |
keep |
| author_role |
aut aut aut |
| collection |
DOAJ |
| remote_str |
true |
| callnumber-label |
RF1-547 |
| illustrated |
Not Illustrated |
| issn |
20941501 |
| topic_title |
RF1-547 Accuracy of Siemens HearCheck™ Navigator as a Screening Tool for Hearing Loss hearing screening hearing screening tool accuracy hearing loss HearCheck™ Navigator |
| topic |
misc RF1-547 misc hearing screening misc hearing screening tool misc accuracy misc hearing loss misc HearCheck™ Navigator misc Otorhinolaryngology |
| topic_unstemmed |
misc RF1-547 misc hearing screening misc hearing screening tool misc accuracy misc hearing loss misc HearCheck™ Navigator misc Otorhinolaryngology |
| topic_browse |
misc RF1-547 misc hearing screening misc hearing screening tool misc accuracy misc hearing loss misc HearCheck™ Navigator misc Otorhinolaryngology |
| format_facet |
Elektronische Aufsätze Aufsätze Elektronische Ressource |
| format_main_str_mv |
Text Zeitschrift/Artikel |
| carriertype_str_mv |
cr |
| hierarchy_parent_title |
Philippine Journal of Otolaryngology Head and Neck Surgery |
| hierarchy_parent_id |
176063249X |
| hierarchy_top_title |
Philippine Journal of Otolaryngology Head and Neck Surgery |
| isfreeaccess_txt |
true |
| familylinks_str_mv |
(DE-627)176063249X |
| title |
Accuracy of Siemens HearCheck™ Navigator as a Screening Tool for Hearing Loss |
| ctrlnum |
(DE-627)DOAJ065811550 (DE-599)DOAJc7e04b2ecf46433c86b7c2af6b828dfa |
| title_full |
Accuracy of Siemens HearCheck™ Navigator as a Screening Tool for Hearing Loss |
| author_sort |
Generoso T. Abes |
| journal |
Philippine Journal of Otolaryngology Head and Neck Surgery |
| journalStr |
Philippine Journal of Otolaryngology Head and Neck Surgery |
| callnumber-first-code |
R |
| lang_code |
eng |
| isOA_bool |
true |
| recordtype |
marc |
| publishDateSort |
2011 |
| contenttype_str_mv |
txt |
| author_browse |
Generoso T. Abes Ma. Rina T. Reyes-Quintos Ma. Leah S. Tantoco |
| container_volume |
26 |
| class |
RF1-547 |
| format_se |
Elektronische Aufsätze |
| author-letter |
Generoso T. Abes |
| doi_str_mv |
10.32412/pjohns.v26i1.593 |
| author2-role |
verfasserin |
| title_sort |
accuracy of siemens hearcheck™ navigator as a screening tool for hearing loss |
| callnumber |
RF1-547 |
| title_auth |
Accuracy of Siemens HearCheck™ Navigator as a Screening Tool for Hearing Loss |
| abstract |
Objective: To calculate the accuracy, sensitivity, specificity and positive predictive values of the Siemens HearCheck™ Navigator in detecting hearing loss and to compare values of these parameters when the examination is done in a soundproof booth and in a quiet room. Methods: Design: Analytical, cross-sectional study Setting: Tertiary Public University Hospital Patients: Patients seen at the Ear Unit of a tertiary public university hospital from June 2009 to August 2010 were tested using the Siemens HearCheck™ Navigator and pure tone audiometry, inside a soundproof audiometry booth and in a quiet room with an ambient noise of 50dB, with a different investigator for each examination. Each ear was treated as a separate subject. Results obtained from the HearCheck™ Navigator were designated as observed values and were classified as “no hearing loss” for green light, and “with hearing loss” for yellow or red lights. Results were compared with pure tone air conduction averages designated as gold standard values. Normal hearing acuity (0-25 dB) was classified as no hearing loss. Pure tone air conduction averages of 26dB and above were classified as “with hearing loss” and were further stratified as mild hearing loss (26-40dB) and moderate or worse hearing loss (<41 dB). Observed and gold standard values were compared and tabulated in a 2x2 table for all levels of hearing loss, mild hearing loss, and moderate or worse hearing loss. Accuracy, sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive values of the Siemens HearCheck™ Navigator inside a soundproof audiometry booth and in a quiet room were determined using pure tone audiometry as the gold standard. Results: 100 patients (200 ears) were tested, with a median age of 43 years old (range 15-75), and an almost equal number of male and female participants (52 males, 48 females). Accuracy rate of the Siemens HearCheck™ Navigator inside the soundproof audiometry booth and in a quiet room were 82.5% and 84% respectively for all levels of hearing loss. Sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive values were similar whether the examination was done inside the soundproof audiometry booth or in a quiet room. These values were notably higher in patients with moderate or worse hearing loss compared to patients with mild hearing loss. Conclusion: The Siemens HearCheck™ Navigator shows potential as an accurate, portable, easy-to-use tool to screen for hearing loss, especially for cases of moderate or worse hearing loss, without the need for soundproof audiometry booths or special training. It is recommended that further studies be done to differentiate degrees of hearing loss, and to evaluate its usefulness in other target populations, including school children and the elderly. Keywords: hearing screening, hearing screening tool, accuracy, hearingloss, HearCheck™ Navigator |
| abstractGer |
Objective: To calculate the accuracy, sensitivity, specificity and positive predictive values of the Siemens HearCheck™ Navigator in detecting hearing loss and to compare values of these parameters when the examination is done in a soundproof booth and in a quiet room. Methods: Design: Analytical, cross-sectional study Setting: Tertiary Public University Hospital Patients: Patients seen at the Ear Unit of a tertiary public university hospital from June 2009 to August 2010 were tested using the Siemens HearCheck™ Navigator and pure tone audiometry, inside a soundproof audiometry booth and in a quiet room with an ambient noise of 50dB, with a different investigator for each examination. Each ear was treated as a separate subject. Results obtained from the HearCheck™ Navigator were designated as observed values and were classified as “no hearing loss” for green light, and “with hearing loss” for yellow or red lights. Results were compared with pure tone air conduction averages designated as gold standard values. Normal hearing acuity (0-25 dB) was classified as no hearing loss. Pure tone air conduction averages of 26dB and above were classified as “with hearing loss” and were further stratified as mild hearing loss (26-40dB) and moderate or worse hearing loss (<41 dB). Observed and gold standard values were compared and tabulated in a 2x2 table for all levels of hearing loss, mild hearing loss, and moderate or worse hearing loss. Accuracy, sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive values of the Siemens HearCheck™ Navigator inside a soundproof audiometry booth and in a quiet room were determined using pure tone audiometry as the gold standard. Results: 100 patients (200 ears) were tested, with a median age of 43 years old (range 15-75), and an almost equal number of male and female participants (52 males, 48 females). Accuracy rate of the Siemens HearCheck™ Navigator inside the soundproof audiometry booth and in a quiet room were 82.5% and 84% respectively for all levels of hearing loss. Sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive values were similar whether the examination was done inside the soundproof audiometry booth or in a quiet room. These values were notably higher in patients with moderate or worse hearing loss compared to patients with mild hearing loss. Conclusion: The Siemens HearCheck™ Navigator shows potential as an accurate, portable, easy-to-use tool to screen for hearing loss, especially for cases of moderate or worse hearing loss, without the need for soundproof audiometry booths or special training. It is recommended that further studies be done to differentiate degrees of hearing loss, and to evaluate its usefulness in other target populations, including school children and the elderly. Keywords: hearing screening, hearing screening tool, accuracy, hearingloss, HearCheck™ Navigator |
| abstract_unstemmed |
Objective: To calculate the accuracy, sensitivity, specificity and positive predictive values of the Siemens HearCheck™ Navigator in detecting hearing loss and to compare values of these parameters when the examination is done in a soundproof booth and in a quiet room. Methods: Design: Analytical, cross-sectional study Setting: Tertiary Public University Hospital Patients: Patients seen at the Ear Unit of a tertiary public university hospital from June 2009 to August 2010 were tested using the Siemens HearCheck™ Navigator and pure tone audiometry, inside a soundproof audiometry booth and in a quiet room with an ambient noise of 50dB, with a different investigator for each examination. Each ear was treated as a separate subject. Results obtained from the HearCheck™ Navigator were designated as observed values and were classified as “no hearing loss” for green light, and “with hearing loss” for yellow or red lights. Results were compared with pure tone air conduction averages designated as gold standard values. Normal hearing acuity (0-25 dB) was classified as no hearing loss. Pure tone air conduction averages of 26dB and above were classified as “with hearing loss” and were further stratified as mild hearing loss (26-40dB) and moderate or worse hearing loss (<41 dB). Observed and gold standard values were compared and tabulated in a 2x2 table for all levels of hearing loss, mild hearing loss, and moderate or worse hearing loss. Accuracy, sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive values of the Siemens HearCheck™ Navigator inside a soundproof audiometry booth and in a quiet room were determined using pure tone audiometry as the gold standard. Results: 100 patients (200 ears) were tested, with a median age of 43 years old (range 15-75), and an almost equal number of male and female participants (52 males, 48 females). Accuracy rate of the Siemens HearCheck™ Navigator inside the soundproof audiometry booth and in a quiet room were 82.5% and 84% respectively for all levels of hearing loss. Sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive values were similar whether the examination was done inside the soundproof audiometry booth or in a quiet room. These values were notably higher in patients with moderate or worse hearing loss compared to patients with mild hearing loss. Conclusion: The Siemens HearCheck™ Navigator shows potential as an accurate, portable, easy-to-use tool to screen for hearing loss, especially for cases of moderate or worse hearing loss, without the need for soundproof audiometry booths or special training. It is recommended that further studies be done to differentiate degrees of hearing loss, and to evaluate its usefulness in other target populations, including school children and the elderly. Keywords: hearing screening, hearing screening tool, accuracy, hearingloss, HearCheck™ Navigator |
| collection_details |
GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_DOAJ SSG-OLC-PHA |
| container_issue |
1 |
| title_short |
Accuracy of Siemens HearCheck™ Navigator as a Screening Tool for Hearing Loss |
| url |
https://doi.org/10.32412/pjohns.v26i1.593 https://doaj.org/article/c7e04b2ecf46433c86b7c2af6b828dfa https://pjohns.pso-hns.org/index.php/pjohns/article/view/593 https://doaj.org/toc/1908-4889 https://doaj.org/toc/2094-1501 |
| remote_bool |
true |
| author2 |
Ma. Rina T. Reyes-Quintos Ma. Leah S. Tantoco |
| author2Str |
Ma. Rina T. Reyes-Quintos Ma. Leah S. Tantoco |
| ppnlink |
176063249X |
| callnumber-subject |
RF - Otorhinolarynhology |
| mediatype_str_mv |
c |
| isOA_txt |
true |
| hochschulschrift_bool |
false |
| doi_str |
10.32412/pjohns.v26i1.593 |
| callnumber-a |
RF1-547 |
| up_date |
2024-07-03T16:43:11.474Z |
| _version_ |
1803576925462986752 |
| fullrecord_marcxml |
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><collection xmlns="http://www.loc.gov/MARC21/slim"><record><leader>01000caa a22002652 4500</leader><controlfield tag="001">DOAJ065811550</controlfield><controlfield tag="003">DE-627</controlfield><controlfield tag="005">20230502064656.0</controlfield><controlfield tag="007">cr uuu---uuuuu</controlfield><controlfield tag="008">230228s2011 xx |||||o 00| ||eng c</controlfield><datafield tag="024" ind1="7" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">10.32412/pjohns.v26i1.593</subfield><subfield code="2">doi</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(DE-627)DOAJ065811550</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(DE-599)DOAJc7e04b2ecf46433c86b7c2af6b828dfa</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="040" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">DE-627</subfield><subfield code="b">ger</subfield><subfield code="c">DE-627</subfield><subfield code="e">rakwb</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="041" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">eng</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="050" ind1=" " ind2="0"><subfield code="a">RF1-547</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="100" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Generoso T. Abes</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="245" ind1="1" ind2="0"><subfield code="a">Accuracy of Siemens HearCheck™ Navigator as a Screening Tool for Hearing Loss</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="264" ind1=" " ind2="1"><subfield code="c">2011</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="336" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Text</subfield><subfield code="b">txt</subfield><subfield code="2">rdacontent</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="337" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Computermedien</subfield><subfield code="b">c</subfield><subfield code="2">rdamedia</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="338" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Online-Ressource</subfield><subfield code="b">cr</subfield><subfield code="2">rdacarrier</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="520" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Objective: To calculate the accuracy, sensitivity, specificity and positive predictive values of the Siemens HearCheck™ Navigator in detecting hearing loss and to compare values of these parameters when the examination is done in a soundproof booth and in a quiet room. Methods: Design: Analytical, cross-sectional study Setting: Tertiary Public University Hospital Patients: Patients seen at the Ear Unit of a tertiary public university hospital from June 2009 to August 2010 were tested using the Siemens HearCheck™ Navigator and pure tone audiometry, inside a soundproof audiometry booth and in a quiet room with an ambient noise of 50dB, with a different investigator for each examination. Each ear was treated as a separate subject. Results obtained from the HearCheck™ Navigator were designated as observed values and were classified as “no hearing loss” for green light, and “with hearing loss” for yellow or red lights. Results were compared with pure tone air conduction averages designated as gold standard values. Normal hearing acuity (0-25 dB) was classified as no hearing loss. Pure tone air conduction averages of 26dB and above were classified as “with hearing loss” and were further stratified as mild hearing loss (26-40dB) and moderate or worse hearing loss (<41 dB). Observed and gold standard values were compared and tabulated in a 2x2 table for all levels of hearing loss, mild hearing loss, and moderate or worse hearing loss. Accuracy, sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive values of the Siemens HearCheck™ Navigator inside a soundproof audiometry booth and in a quiet room were determined using pure tone audiometry as the gold standard. Results: 100 patients (200 ears) were tested, with a median age of 43 years old (range 15-75), and an almost equal number of male and female participants (52 males, 48 females). Accuracy rate of the Siemens HearCheck™ Navigator inside the soundproof audiometry booth and in a quiet room were 82.5% and 84% respectively for all levels of hearing loss. Sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive values were similar whether the examination was done inside the soundproof audiometry booth or in a quiet room. These values were notably higher in patients with moderate or worse hearing loss compared to patients with mild hearing loss. Conclusion: The Siemens HearCheck™ Navigator shows potential as an accurate, portable, easy-to-use tool to screen for hearing loss, especially for cases of moderate or worse hearing loss, without the need for soundproof audiometry booths or special training. It is recommended that further studies be done to differentiate degrees of hearing loss, and to evaluate its usefulness in other target populations, including school children and the elderly. Keywords: hearing screening, hearing screening tool, accuracy, hearingloss, HearCheck™ Navigator</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">hearing screening</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">hearing screening tool</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">accuracy</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">hearing loss</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">HearCheck™ Navigator</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="653" ind1=" " ind2="0"><subfield code="a">Otorhinolaryngology</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Ma. Rina T. Reyes-Quintos</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Ma. Leah S. Tantoco</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="773" ind1="0" ind2="8"><subfield code="i">In</subfield><subfield code="t">Philippine Journal of Otolaryngology Head and Neck Surgery</subfield><subfield code="d">Philippine Society of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, Inc., 2019</subfield><subfield code="g">26(2011), 1</subfield><subfield code="w">(DE-627)176063249X</subfield><subfield code="x">20941501</subfield><subfield code="7">nnns</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="773" ind1="1" ind2="8"><subfield code="g">volume:26</subfield><subfield code="g">year:2011</subfield><subfield code="g">number:1</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="0"><subfield code="u">https://doi.org/10.32412/pjohns.v26i1.593</subfield><subfield code="z">kostenfrei</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="0"><subfield code="u">https://doaj.org/article/c7e04b2ecf46433c86b7c2af6b828dfa</subfield><subfield code="z">kostenfrei</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="0"><subfield code="u">https://pjohns.pso-hns.org/index.php/pjohns/article/view/593</subfield><subfield code="z">kostenfrei</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="2"><subfield code="u">https://doaj.org/toc/1908-4889</subfield><subfield code="y">Journal toc</subfield><subfield code="z">kostenfrei</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="2"><subfield code="u">https://doaj.org/toc/2094-1501</subfield><subfield code="y">Journal toc</subfield><subfield code="z">kostenfrei</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_USEFLAG_A</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">SYSFLAG_A</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_DOAJ</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">SSG-OLC-PHA</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="951" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">AR</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="952" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="d">26</subfield><subfield code="j">2011</subfield><subfield code="e">1</subfield></datafield></record></collection>
|
| score |
7.4005775 |