Buhrer K, Wall L G, Schuster L
Ear Hear. 1985 Nov-Dec;6(6):307-14. doi: 10.1097/00003446-198511000-00006.
Sixty children (120 ears) were evaluated using reflectometry, pure tones, immittance, otologic examination, and pure-tone air and bone conduction thresholds. Comparisons were made between the various screeners. Reflectometry was found to be the least sensitive and the least specific of the procedures. Results were then examined within each diagnostic category to determine test agreement with the otologists' judgments. The reflectometer categorization was found to be inconsistent with the otologic findings. Finally, the reflectometer was compared to each of the other screener results and pure-tone thresholds. The test results were significantly correlated but showed high over- and under-referral rates for the reflectometer. Seventy-eight children and adults (156 ears) were screened in a second study. Again, the acoustic reflectometer did not perform adequately as a general screening tool. When only cases of middle ear effusion were screened, the acoustic reflectometer did not perform as well as immitance.
使用反射测量法、纯音测试、声导抗测试、耳科检查以及纯音气导和骨导阈值对60名儿童（120只耳朵）进行了评估。对各种筛查方法进行了比较。结果发现，反射测量法是这些检查方法中敏感性最低且特异性最差的。然后在每个诊断类别中检查结果，以确定与耳科医生判断的测试一致性。发现反射测量仪的分类与耳科检查结果不一致。最后，将反射测量仪与其他筛查方法的结果以及纯音阈值进行了比较。测试结果显著相关，但反射测量仪的转诊率过高和过低。在第二项研究中，对78名儿童和成人（156只耳朵）进行了筛查。同样，声学反射测量仪作为一种通用的筛查工具表现不佳。仅对中耳积液病例进行筛查时，声学反射测量仪的表现不如声导抗测试。
