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 B Lundy, Sumitrajit Dhar, David A Zapala

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Abstract

Objectives: The 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. Design: The 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. Results: Of 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%). Conclusions: Stakeholders 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.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)1035-1038
Number of pages4
JournalEar and Hearing
Volume39
Issue number5
DOIs
StatePublished - Jan 1 2018

Fingerprint

Ear Diseases
Confidence Intervals
Otolaryngology
Hearing
Audiology
Sensitivity and Specificity
Hearing Aids
United States Food and Drug Administration
Hearing Loss
Noise
Neck
Head
Equipment and Supplies

Keywords

  • Ear diseases
  • Medical evaluation
  • Red flags

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Otorhinolaryngology
  • Speech and Hearing

Cite this

Klyn, N. A. M., Robler, S. K., Alfakir, R., Nielsen, D. W., Griffith, J. W., Carlson, D. L., ... Zapala, D. A. (2018). A retrospective estimate of ear disease detection using the “red flags” in a clinical sample. Ear and Hearing, 39(5), 1035-1038. https://doi.org/10.1097/AUD.0000000000000561

A retrospective estimate of ear disease detection using the “red flags” in a clinical sample. / Klyn, Niall A.M.; Robler, Samantha Kleindienst; Alfakir, Razan; Nielsen, Donald W.; Griffith, James W.; Carlson, Deborah L.; Lundy, Larry B; Dhar, Sumitrajit; Zapala, David A.

In: Ear and Hearing, Vol. 39, No. 5, 01.01.2018, p. 1035-1038.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Klyn, NAM, Robler, SK, Alfakir, R, Nielsen, DW, Griffith, JW, Carlson, DL, Lundy, LB, Dhar, S & Zapala, DA 2018, 'A retrospective estimate of ear disease detection using the “red flags” in a clinical sample', Ear and Hearing, vol. 39, no. 5, pp. 1035-1038. https://doi.org/10.1097/AUD.0000000000000561
Klyn NAM, Robler SK, Alfakir R, Nielsen DW, Griffith JW, Carlson DL et al. A retrospective estimate of ear disease detection using the “red flags” in a clinical sample. Ear and Hearing. 2018 Jan 1;39(5):1035-1038. https://doi.org/10.1097/AUD.0000000000000561
Klyn, Niall A.M. ; Robler, Samantha Kleindienst ; Alfakir, Razan ; Nielsen, Donald W. ; Griffith, James W. ; Carlson, Deborah L. ; Lundy, Larry B ; Dhar, Sumitrajit ; Zapala, David A. / A retrospective estimate of ear disease detection using the “red flags” in a clinical sample. In: Ear and Hearing. 2018 ; Vol. 39, No. 5. pp. 1035-1038.
@article{a12934fca1034a96aea2b59e7063dcf8,
title = "A retrospective estimate of ear disease detection using the “red flags” in a clinical sample",
abstract = "Objectives: The 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. Design: The 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. Results: Of 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{\%}). Conclusions: Stakeholders 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.",
keywords = "Ear diseases, Medical evaluation, Red flags",
author = "Klyn, {Niall A.M.} and Robler, {Samantha Kleindienst} and Razan Alfakir and Nielsen, {Donald W.} and Griffith, {James W.} and Carlson, {Deborah L.} and Lundy, {Larry B} and Sumitrajit Dhar and Zapala, {David A}",
year = "2018",
month = "1",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1097/AUD.0000000000000561",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "39",
pages = "1035--1038",
journal = "Ear and Hearing",
issn = "0196-0202",
publisher = "Lippincott Williams and Wilkins",
number = "5",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - A retrospective estimate of ear disease detection using the “red flags” in a clinical sample

AU - Klyn, Niall A.M.

AU - Robler, Samantha Kleindienst

AU - Alfakir, Razan

AU - Nielsen, Donald W.

AU - Griffith, James W.

AU - Carlson, Deborah L.

AU - Lundy, Larry B

AU - Dhar, Sumitrajit

AU - Zapala, David A

PY - 2018/1/1

Y1 - 2018/1/1

N2 - Objectives: The 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. Design: The 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. Results: Of 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%). Conclusions: Stakeholders 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.

AB - Objectives: The 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. Design: The 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. Results: Of 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%). Conclusions: Stakeholders 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.

KW - Ear diseases

KW - Medical evaluation

KW - Red flags

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85056549737&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85056549737&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1097/AUD.0000000000000561

DO - 10.1097/AUD.0000000000000561

M3 - Article

VL - 39

SP - 1035

EP - 1038

JO - Ear and Hearing

JF - Ear and Hearing

SN - 0196-0202

IS - 5

ER -