Suppr超能文献

空气和水热量反应的可靠性。

Reliabilities of air and water caloric responses.

作者信息

Ford C R, Stockwell C W

出版信息

Arch Otolaryngol. 1978 Jul;104(7):380-2. doi: 10.1001/archotol.1978.00790070018004.

Abstract

Air is a safer and more convenient caloric-irrigating medium than water, but many otologists are reluctant to use it because they suspect that it yields less reliable nystagmus responses. To compare reliabilities of air and water caloric responses, we subjected eight normal persons to 12 irrigations each of 50 degrees C air, 44 degrees C water, 24 degrees C air, and 30 degrees C water. Standard caloric-testing conditions were used, and nystagmus responses were recorded by the method of electronystagmography. We found that the reliabilities of air and water caloric responses were not significantly different. A single observation permitted estimation of response strength within approximalely +/- 5 degrees/sec (95% confidence level), regardless of whether air or water was used as the irrigating medium.

摘要

与水相比,空气是一种更安全、更便捷的热灌注介质,但许多耳科医生不愿使用它,因为他们怀疑空气诱发的眼震反应可靠性较低。为比较空气和水热刺激反应的可靠性,我们让8名正常人分别接受50摄氏度空气、44摄氏度水、24摄氏度空气和30摄氏度水的各12次灌注。采用标准的热测试条件,并通过眼震电图法记录眼震反应。我们发现,空气和水热刺激反应的可靠性没有显著差异。无论使用空气还是水作为灌注介质,单次观察即可在大约±5度/秒(95%置信水平)范围内估计反应强度。

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验