Stewart I A, Jenkin L, Kirkland C, Silva P A, Simpson A
N Z Med J. 1983 Apr 13;96(729):252-5.
Microscopic examination by two trained examiners, conventional impedance tympanometry by a trained audiometrist, automatic impedance tympanometry by a person with minimal training and puretone audiometry by trained audiometrists were compared in 468 ears, studied blind. There was complete examiner agreement in microscopic examination in 465 (99.3%) ears, minor disagreement in three (0.7%) ears. There was a more complex relationship between examination methods, with microscopic evidence of effusion being present in 88.2% of ears showing B tympanograms to conventional tympanometry and in 66.7% of ears to automatic tympanometry. Automatic tympanometry provides a reasonably accurate method of detecting middle ear effusion, but tends to overdiagnose this condition compared to alternate methods.
由两名经过培训的检查人员进行显微镜检查，由一名经过培训的听力测定专家进行传统的声阻抗鼓室图测量，由一名经过最少培训的人员进行自动声阻抗鼓室图测量，并由经过培训的听力测定专家进行纯音听力测定，对468只耳朵进行了盲法研究并比较。在显微镜检查中，465只（99.3%）耳朵的检查人员完全一致，3只（0.7%）耳朵存在轻微分歧。检查方法之间的关系更为复杂，在传统鼓室图显示为B型鼓室图的耳朵中，88.2%有显微镜下积液证据，在自动鼓室图测量的耳朵中，66.7%有积液证据。自动鼓室图测量提供了一种合理准确的检测中耳积液的方法，但与其他方法相比，往往会过度诊断这种情况。
