4.3 Article

Common Audiological Functional Parameters (CAFPAs): statistical and compact representation of rehabilitative audiological classification based on expert knowledge

期刊

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF AUDIOLOGY
卷 58, 期 4, 页码 231-245

出版社

TAYLOR & FRANCIS LTD
DOI: 10.1080/14992027.2018.1554912

关键词

Medical audiology; tele-audiology; tele-health; CAFPAs; audiological education; clinical decision support system

资金

  1. DFG Cluster of Excellence [EXC 1077/1]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective: As a step towards objectifying audiological rehabilitation and providing comparability between different test batteries and clinics, the Common Audiological Functional Parameters (CAFPAs) were introduced as a common and abstract representation of audiological knowledge obtained from diagnostic tests. Design: Relationships between CAFPAs as an intermediate representation between diagnostic tests and audiological findings, diagnoses and treatment recommendations (summarised as diagnostic cases) were established by means of an expert survey. Expert knowledge was collected for 14 given categories covering different diagnostic cases. For each case, the experts were asked to indicate expected ranges of diagnostic test outcomes, as well as traffic light-encoded CAFPAs. Study sample: Eleven German experts in the field of audiological rehabilitation from Hanover and Oldenburg participated in the survey. Results: Audiological findings or treatment recommendations could be distinguished by a statistical model derived from the experts' answers for CAFPAs as well as audiological tests. Conclusions: The CAFPAs serve as an abstract, comprehensive representation of audiological knowledge. If more detailed information on certain functional aspects of the auditory system is required, the CAFPAs indicate which information is missing. The statistical graphical representations for CAFPAs and audiological tests are suitable for audiological teaching material; they are universally applicable for real clinical databases.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.3
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据