Which tympanometer is optimal for an outpatient primary care setting?
The Journal of Family Practice. 2006 November;55(11):946-952
November 1, 2006|The Journal of Family Practice
Author and Disclosure Information
Four models out of 16 made the cut for best in field.
TABLE 2
For compliance and pressure readings, the Earscan showed the most consistency while the MT10 showed the least
| EAR A | EAR B | EAR C | EAR D | EAR E | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Range of readings (variance) for compliance in mL | |||||
| Earscan | 0.2 | 0.1 | 0.2 | 0.1 | 0.4 |
| MT 10 | 0.8 | 0.65 | 0.64 | 0.12 | 0.62 |
| Range of readings (variance) for pressure in daPa | |||||
| Earscan | 0 | 6 | 0 | 0 | 6 |
| MT10 | 30 | 53 | 31 | 16 | 82 |
TABLE 3
User ratings of 4 tympanometers (Likert scale 1 to 5)
| CATEGORY | EARSCAN | GSI 37 | MICROTYMP 2 | MT10 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Categories deemed highest importance | ||||
| Ease of use: overall | 4.1 | 3.8 | 3.0 | 3.8 |
| Data quality | 4.4 | 4.4 | 4.0 | 4.4 |
| Ergonomics | 4.5 | 4.6 | 4.4 | 4.0 |
| Durability | 4.9 | 4.3 | 4.4 | 4.6 |
| Maintenance | 4.7 | 4.8 | 3.7 | 4.4 |
| Categories deemed medium importance | ||||
| Ease of use: controls | 3.8 | 3.7 | 4.2 | 4.5 |
| Screen | 4.3 | 4.5 | 3.1 | 4.7 |
| Accessories | 4.2 | 3.9 | 3.8 | 4.3 |
| Categories deemed lowest importance | ||||
| Appearance | 4.0 | 3.8 | 3.7 | 4.1 |
| Size | 4.1 | 3.8 | 4.2 | 4.4 |
| Capabilities | 4.0 | 2.0 | 1.0 | 4.0 |
| Info layout | 4.2 | 4.2 | 4.1 | 4.7 |
| Interface | 3.7 | 2.6 | 2.4 | 3.7 |
| Total | 54.9 | 50.4 | 46.0 | 56.3 |
CORRESPONDENCE
Chris Patricoski, MD, Alaska Federal Health Care Access Network, 4000 Ambassador Drive, Anchorage, AK 99508. E-mail: cpatricoski@afhcan.org
