1985
DOI: 10.1177/152574018500800202
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

An Alternative To Impedance Screening: Unoccluded Frontal Bone Conduction Screening

Abstract: A bone conduction screening test was developed utilizing frontal bone oscillator placement. One hundred and fourteen preschool children were tested using a pure-tone air-conduction screening procedure, an impedance audiometry screening procedure (automatic tympanometry and ipsilateral reflex stimulation at 1000Hz), and the unoccluded bone conduction screening test. Unoccluded frontal bone conduction testing produced screening results that were not significantly different from results obtained utilizing impedan… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1

Citation Types

0
2
0

Year Published

2007
2007
2007
2007

Publication Types

Select...
1

Relationship

0
1

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 1 publication
(2 citation statements)
references
References 8 publications
0
2
0
Order By: Relevance
“…They reported sensitivity (91%) and specificity (99.67%). The study by Square and colleagues 60 compared bone conduction tests combined with PTA to impedance screening and found poor sensitivity (26%) and specificity (6.6%). Finally, Pang-Ching and colleagues 52 found that reflectometry had poor sensitivity (23%) and specificity (56%) compared with otoscopy results.…”
Section: Audiometrymentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…They reported sensitivity (91%) and specificity (99.67%). The study by Square and colleagues 60 compared bone conduction tests combined with PTA to impedance screening and found poor sensitivity (26%) and specificity (6.6%). Finally, Pang-Ching and colleagues 52 found that reflectometry had poor sensitivity (23%) and specificity (56%) compared with otoscopy results.…”
Section: Audiometrymentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Thirteen studies reported screen performance. [51][52][53][54][55][56][57][58][59][60][61][62] No studies reported either screen yield or adverse effects.…”
Section: Scope Of Included Studiesmentioning
confidence: 99%