Bluestone C D, Cantekin E I
Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol Suppl. 1979 Sep-Oct;88(5 Pt 2 Suppl 60):13-28. doi: 10.1177/00034894790880s503.
Because the state of our knowledge of many aspects of the etiology and pathogenesis of otitis media and related conditions is deficient, precise characterizations of certain aspects of the disease may not be possible. In fact although most studies in the past have failed to define the specific disease state to be investigated, the specific type of otitis media or related condition to be studied must be as clearly defined as is clinically possible in order for any prospective study of otitis media to be valid. The state of the art of the presently available methods to identify these conditions also poses certain limitations; at present, there are five methods to identify otitis media and related conditions: history, audiometry, tympanocentesis/myringotomy, otoscopy (including otomicroscopy), and impedance measurements (tympanometry and assessment of the middle earl muscle reflex), and they all have inherent elements of unreliability. Historical information obtained from parents or the child is usually unreliable; a positive history may aid in defining the problem, but a negative otologic history does not rule out the presence of otitis media since it is frequently asymptomatic. Audiometry has been shown to be a poor method of identifying otitis media. Although tympanocentesis or myringotomy is the most reliable way to identify otitis media with effusion (OME), it is invasive, frequently requires an anesthetic, and is usually a confounding variable. In an effort to establish the diagnostic value of otoscopy, tympanometry, and the presence or absence of the middle ear muscle reflex in identifying OME, the diagnostic findings by these three methods, were compared with the findings at myringotomy in 239 children (425 ears). The study showed that even experienced clinicians had some difficulty in identifying those ears with effusion (sensitivity) and had even greater difficulty in making a diagnosis of those ears without an effusion (specificity). Tympanometry employing patterns that have been validated with myringotomy findings was found to be as accurate as expert otoscopy. On the other hand, the presence or absence of the middle ear muscle reflex was found not to be a useful method of diagnosing the presence of OME due to its extremely low specificity. An algorithm derived from the combination of the three methods had highest sensitivity and specificity. From this study, the following recommendations regarding the identification of OME are suggested. All investigators who employ otoscopy should be validated by comparing their assessments either with the findings at myringotomy or with a previously validated otoscopist. Interobserver realiability of all otoscopists should be established prior to and maintained during clinical studies of OME. Only electroacoustic impedance instruments in which the tympanometric patterns have been validated should be used. Tympanometry employing validated tympanometric patterns has a high degree of sensitivity and specificity, and as such can provide an objective method to identify OME...
由于我们对中耳炎及相关病症的病因和发病机制诸多方面的了解尚不充分,可能无法对该疾病的某些方面进行精确描述。事实上,尽管过去大多数研究未能明确所研究的具体疾病状态,但为使任何关于中耳炎的前瞻性研究有效,所研究的中耳炎具体类型或相关病症必须在临床上尽可能明确界定。目前用于识别这些病症的现有方法的技术水平也存在一定局限性;目前,有五种方法可用于识别中耳炎及相关病症:病史、听力测定、鼓膜穿刺术/鼓膜切开术、耳镜检查(包括耳显微镜检查)以及阻抗测量(鼓室导抗图和中耳肌反射评估),而它们都存在固有的不可靠因素。从父母或孩子那里获得的病史信息通常不可靠;阳性病史可能有助于明确问题,但阴性耳科病史并不能排除中耳炎的存在,因为中耳炎常常没有症状。听力测定已被证明是一种识别中耳炎的欠佳方法。尽管鼓膜穿刺术或鼓膜切开术是识别中耳积液(OME)最可靠的方法,但它具有侵入性,通常需要麻醉,且往往是一个混杂变量。为了确定耳镜检查、鼓室导抗图以及中耳肌反射的有无在识别OME方面的诊断价值,将这三种方法的诊断结果与239名儿童(425只耳朵)鼓膜切开术的结果进行了比较。研究表明,即使是经验丰富的临床医生在识别有积液的耳朵(敏感性)方面也存在一定困难,而在诊断无积液的耳朵(特异性)方面困难更大。采用经鼓膜切开术结果验证的模式的鼓室导抗图被发现与专家耳镜检查一样准确。另一方面,发现中耳肌反射的有无由于其极低的特异性而不是诊断OME存在的有用方法。由这三种方法组合得出的一种算法具有最高的敏感性和特异性。基于这项研究,就OME的识别提出了以下建议。所有采用耳镜检查的研究人员都应通过将他们的评估与鼓膜切开术的结果或与先前经验证的耳镜检查人员的结果进行比较来进行验证。在OME的临床研究之前和期间,都应确定所有耳镜检查人员之间的观察者间可靠性。应仅使用其鼓室导抗图模式已得到验证的电声阻抗仪器。采用经验证的鼓室导抗图模式的鼓室导抗图具有高度的敏感性和特异性,因此可以提供一种识别OME的客观方法……