A Retrospective Estimate of Ear Disease Detection Using the "Red Flags" in a Clinical Sample

Ear Hear. 2018 Sep-Oct;39(5):1035-1038. doi: 10.1097/AUD.0000000000000561.

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.

Publication types

  • Evaluation Study
  • Research Support, N.I.H., Extramural
  • Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't

MeSH terms

  • Adult
  • Aged
  • Contraindications*
  • Cost-Benefit Analysis
  • Female
  • Government Regulation
  • Hearing Aids*
  • Hearing Loss / diagnosis*
  • Hearing Loss / rehabilitation
  • Hearing Tests*
  • Humans
  • Male
  • Mass Screening / economics
  • Middle Aged
  • Retrospective Studies
  • Sensitivity and Specificity
  • United States
  • United States Food and Drug Administration