StudentShare
Contact Us
Sign In / Sign Up for FREE
Search
Go to advanced search...
Free

Validity of Screening Audiological Tests in Detecting Signs of Ototoxicity in Cystic Fibrosis Children - Dissertation Example

Cite this document
Summary
In the following paper "Validity of Screening Audiological Tests in Detecting Signs of Ototoxicity in Cystic Fibrosis Children", the simple Linear regression equation was plotted and correlation coefficients were analyzed along with kappa values…
Download full paper File format: .doc, available for editing
GRAB THE BEST PAPER94.9% of users find it useful
Validity of Screening Audiological Tests in Detecting Signs of Ototoxicity in Cystic Fibrosis Children
Read Text Preview

Extract of sample "Validity of Screening Audiological Tests in Detecting Signs of Ototoxicity in Cystic Fibrosis Children"

?Results Simple Linear regression equation was plotted and correlation co-efficients were analyzed along with kappa values. Result1: Left Standard PTA (Y) to Left Screening HFPTA(X) Y = alpha + beta X Intercept (alpha) 0 Slope (beta) 0.6 S.D. (beta) 0.0974 T-Stat (beta) 6.1619 P-Value (beta) 0 Correlation 0.7474 R-squared 0.5586 Result 2:Right Standard PTA (Y) to Right Screening HFPTA(X) Y = alpha + beta X Intercept (alpha) 0 Slope (beta) 1 S.D. (beta) 0 T-Stat (beta) 44157213008362808 P-Value (beta) 0 Correlation 1 R-squared 1 Result3 : Right Screening HFPTA(X) to Right Diagnostic HFPTA(Y) Y = alpha + beta X Intercept (alpha) 0 Slope (beta) 1 S.D. (beta) 0 T-Stat (beta) 44157213008362808 P-Value (beta) 0 Correlation 1 R-squared 1 Result 4: Left Screening HFPTA to Left Diagnostic HFPTA Y = alpha + beta X Intercept (alpha) 0.037 Slope (beta) 0.563 S.D. (beta) 0.1307 T-Stat (beta) 4.3063 P-Value (beta) 2e-04 Correlation 0.6181 R-squared 0.382 Result 5: Right Screening HFPTA (X) to Right Diagnostic DPOAE(Y) Y = alpha + beta X Intercept (alpha) 0.037 Slope (beta) 0.563 S.D. (beta) 0.1307 T-Stat (beta) 4.3063 P-Value (beta) 2e-04 Correlation 0.6181 R-squared 0.382 Result 6: Left Screening HFPTA (X) to Left Diagnostic DPOAE(Y) Y = alpha + beta X Intercept (alpha) 0 Slope (beta) 0.6 S.D. (beta) 0.0974 T-Stat (beta) 6.1619 P-Value (beta) 0 Correlation 0.7474 R-squared 0.5586 Result 7:Right Screening DPOAE (X) to Right Screening HFPTA(Y) Y = alpha + beta X Intercept (alpha) 0 Slope (beta) 0.75 S.D. (beta) 0.0845 T-Stat (beta) 8.8741 P-Value (beta) 0 Correlation 0.851 R-squared 0.7241 Result 8: Left Screening DPOAE(X) to Left Screening HFPTA(Y) Y = alpha + beta X Intercept (alpha) 0 Slope (beta) 1 S.D. (beta) 0 T-Stat (beta) 15129861409362786 P-Value (beta) 0 Correlation 1 R-squared 1 Result9: Left Standard PTA(Y) to Left Screening DPOAE(X) Y = alpha + beta X Intercept (alpha) 0 Slope (beta) 1 S.D. (beta) 0 T-Stat (beta) 15129861409362786 P-Value (beta) 0 Correlation 1 R-squared 1 Result 10: Right Standard PTA(Y) to Right Screening DPOAE(X) Y = alpha + beta X Intercept (alpha) 0.0714 Slope (beta) 0.6786 S.D. (beta) 0.1576 T-Stat (beta) 4.3063 P-Value (beta) 2e-04 Correlation 0.6181 R-squared 0.382 Result 11: Left Screening DPOAE(X) to Left Diagnostic HFPTA(Y) Y = alpha + beta X Intercept (alpha) 0.069 Slope (beta) 0.931 S.D. (beta) 0.1511 T-Stat (beta) 6.1619 P-Value (beta) 0 Correlation 0.7474 R-squared 0.5586 Result12: Right Screening DPOAE(X) to Right Diagnostic HFPTA(Y) Y = alpha + beta X Intercept (alpha) 0.0345 Slope (beta) 0.9655 S.D. (beta) 0.1088 T-Stat (beta) 8.8741 P-Value (beta) 0 Correlation 0.851 R-squared 0.7241 Result 13: Right Screening DPOAE(X) to Right Diagnostic DPOAE(Y) Y = alpha + beta X Intercept (alpha) 0 Slope (beta) 1 S.D. (beta) 0 T-Stat (beta) 17273101793064750 P-Value (beta) 0 Correlation 1 R-squared 1 Result14: Left Screening DPOAE(X) to Left Diagnostic DPOAE(Y) Y = alpha + beta X Intercept (alpha) 0.04 Slope (beta) 0.96 S.D. (beta) 0.0765 T-Stat (beta) 12.5499 P-Value (beta) 0 Correlation 0.9165 R-squared 0.84 Result 15: Overall Screening(X) To Diagnostic Tests(Y) A B Total A 2927 0529 3456 B 0327 0305 632 Total 3254 834 4088 Number of observed agreements: 3232 ( 79.06% of the observations) Number of agreements expected by chance: 2879.9 ( 70.45% of the observations) Kappa= 0.291 SE of kappa = 0.018 95% confidence interval: From 0.255 to 0.327 The strength of agreement is considered to be 'fair'. Results: Right Standard PTA to Right Screening HFPTA A B Total A 2927 0529 3456 B 0327 0305 632 Total 3254 834 4088 Number of observed agreements: 3232 ( 79.06% of the observations) Number of agreements expected by chance: 2879.9 ( 70.45% of the observations) Kappa= 0.291 SE of kappa = 0.018 95% confidence interval: From 0.255 to 0.327 The strength of agreement is considered to be 'fair'. Results: Left Standard PTA to Left Screening HFPTA A B Total A 2727 0527 3254 B 0527 0505 1032 Total 3254 1032 4286 Number of observed agreements: 3232 ( 75.41% of the observations) Number of agreements expected by chance: 2719.0 ( 63.44% of the observations) Kappa= 0.327 SE of kappa = 0.016 95% confidence interval: From 0.295 to 0.360 The strength of agreement is considered to be 'fair'. Right Screening HFPTA to Right Diagnostic HFPTA A B Total A 2727 0527 3254 B 0527 0505 1032 Total 3254 1032 4286 Number of observed agreements: 3232 ( 75.41% of the observations) Number of agreements expected by chance: 2719.0 ( 63.44% of the observations) Kappa= 0.327 SE of kappa = 0.016 95% confidence interval: From 0.295 to 0.360 The strength of agreement is considered to be 'fair'. Left Screening HFPTA to Left Diagnostic HFPTA A B Total A 2728 0427 3155 B 0528 0504 1032 Total 3256 931 4187 Number of observed agreements: 3232 ( 77.19% of the observations) Number of agreements expected by chance: 2682.9 ( 64.08% of the observations) Kappa= 0.365 SE of kappa = 0.017 95% confidence interval: From 0.332 to 0.398 The strength of agreement is considered to be 'fair'. Left Screening HFPTA to Left Diagnostic DPOAE A B Total A 2728 0427 3155 B 0528 0504 1032 Total 3256 931 4187 Number of observed agreements: 3232 ( 77.19% of the observations) Number of agreements expected by chance: 2682.9 ( 64.08% of the observations) Kappa= 0.365 SE of kappa = 0.017 95% confidence interval: From 0.332 to 0.398 The strength of agreement is considered to be 'fair'. Right Screening HFPTA to Right Diagnostic DPOAE A B Total A 2927 0529 3456 B 0327 0305 632 Total 3254 834 4088 Number of observed agreements: 3232 ( 79.06% of the observations) Number of agreements expected by chance: 2879.9 ( 70.45% of the observations) Kappa= 0.291 SE of kappa = 0.018 95% confidence interval: From 0.255 to 0.327 The strength of agreement is considered to be 'fair'. Right Screening DPOAE to Right Screening HFPTA A B Total A 2728 0427 3155 B 0528 0504 1032 Total 3256 931 4187 Number of observed agreements: 3232 ( 77.19% of the observations) Number of agreements expected by chance: 2682.9 ( 64.08% of the observations) Kappa= 0.365 SE of kappa = 0.017 95% confidence interval: From 0.332 to 0.398 The strength of agreement is considered to be 'fair'. Left Screening DPOAE to Left Screening HFPTA A B Total A 2927 0529 3456 B 0327 0305 632 Total 3254 834 4088 Number of observed agreements: 3232 ( 79.06% of the observations) Number of agreements expected by chance: 2879.9 ( 70.45% of the observations) Kappa= 0.291 SE of kappa = 0.018 95% confidence interval: From 0.255 to 0.327 The strength of agreement is considered to be 'fair'. Left Standard PTA to Left Screening DPOAE A B Total A 2927 0529 3456 B 0327 0305 632 Total 3254 834 4088 Number of observed agreements: 3232 ( 79.06% of the observations) Number of agreements expected by chance: 2879.9 ( 70.45% of the observations) Kappa= 0.291 SE of kappa = 0.018 95% confidence interval: From 0.255 to 0.327 The strength of agreement is considered to be 'fair'. Right Screening DPOAE to Right Standard PTA A B Total A 2728 0427 3155 B 0528 0504 1032 Total 3256 931 4187 Number of observed agreements: 3232 ( 77.19% of the observations) Number of agreements expected by chance: 2682.9 ( 64.08% of the observations) Kappa= 0.365 SE of kappa = 0.017 95% confidence interval: From 0.332 to 0.398 The strength of agreement is considered to be 'fair'. Left Screening DPOAE to Left Diagnostic HFPTA A B Total A 2727 0527 3254 B 0527 0505 1032 Total 3254 1032 4286 Number of observed agreements: 3232 ( 75.41% of the observations) Number of agreements expected by chance: 2719.0 ( 63.44% of the observations) Kappa= 0.327 SE of kappa = 0.016 95% confidence interval: From 0.295 to 0.360 The strength of agreement is considered to be 'fair'. Right Screening DPOAE to Right Diagnostic HFPTA A B Total A 2828 0428 3256 B 0428 0404 832 Total 3256 832 4088 Number of observed agreements: 3232 ( 79.06% of the observations) Number of agreements expected by chance: 2762.7 ( 67.58% of the observations) Kappa= 0.354 SE of kappa = 0.018 95% confidence interval: From 0.319 to 0.389 The strength of agreement is considered to be 'fair'. Left Screening DPOAE to Left Diagnostic DPOA A B Total A 2829 0328 3157 B 0429 0403 832 Total 3258 731 3989 Number of observed agreements: 3232 ( 81.02% of the observations) Number of agreements expected by chance: 2730.9 ( 68.46% of the observations) Kappa= 0.398 SE of kappa = 0.018 95% confidence interval: From 0.363 to 0.433 The strength of agreement is considered to be 'fair'. Right Screening DPOAE to Right Diagnostic DPOAE A B Total A 2524 0825 3349 B 0724 0708 1432 Total 3248 1533 4781 Number of observed agreements: 3232 ( 67.60% of the observations) Number of agreements expected by chance: 2734.3 ( 57.19% of the observations) Kappa= 0.243 SE of kappa = 0.015 95% confidence interval: From 0.214 to 0.272 The strength of agreement is considered to be 'fair'. Result :Overall Screening To Diagnostic Tests Right Standard PTA to Right Screening HFPTA Sensitivity = 100.00 % 95% CI: 30.48 % to 100.00 % Specificity = 93.10 % 95% CI: 77.19 % to 98.95 % PositivePredictiveValue = 60.00 % (*) 95% CI: 15.40 % to 93.51 % Negative Predictive Value = 100.00 % (*) 95% CI: 87.11 % to 100.00 % Left Standard PTA to Left Screening HFPTA Sensitivity = 100.00 % 95% CI: 30.48 % to 100.00 % Specificity = 93.10 % 95% CI: 77.19 % to 98.95 % PositivePredictiveValue = 60.00 % (*) 95% CI: 15.40 % to 93.51 % Negative Predictive Value = 100.00 % (*) 95% CI: 87.11 % to 100.00 % Right Diagnostic HFPTA to Right Screening HFPTA Sensitivity = 100.00 % 95% CI: 47.95 % to 100.00 % Specificity = 100.00 % 95% CI: 87.11 % to 100.00 % Positive Predictive Value = 100.00 % (*) 95% CI: 47.95 % to 100.00 % Negative Predictive Value = 100.00 % (*) 95% CI: 87.11 % to 100.00 % Left Diagnostic HFPTA to Left Screening HFPTA Sensitivity = 100.00 % 95% CI: 47.95 % to 100.00 % Specificity = 100.00 % 95% CI: 87.11 % to 100.00 % Positive Predictive Value = 100.00 % (*) 95% CI: 47.95 % to 100.00 % Negative Predictive Value = 100.00 % (*) 95% CI: 87.11 % to 100.00 % Left Diagnostic DPOAE to Left Screening HFPTA Sensitivity = 100.00 % 95% CI: 40.23 % to 100.00 % Specificity = 96.43 % 95% CI: 81.59 % to 99.40 % Positive Predictive Value = 80.00 % (*) 95% CI: 28.81 % to 96.70 % Negative PredictiveValue = 100.00 % (*) 95% CI: 87.11 % to 100.00 % Right Diagnostic DPOAE to Right Screening HFPTA Sensitivity = 100.00 % 95% CI: 40.23 % to 100.00 % Specificity = 96.43 % 95% CI: 81.59 % to 99.40 % Positive Predictive Value = 80.00 % (*) 95% CI: 28.81 % to 96.70 % Negative PredictiveValue = 100.00 % (*) 95% CI: 87.11 % to 100.00 % Right Screening DPOAE to Right Screening HFPTA Sensitivity = 100.00 % 95% CI: 30.48 % to 100.00 % Specificity = 93.10 % 95% CI: 77.19 % to 98.95 % PositivePredictiveValue = 60.00 % (*) 95% CI: 15.40 % to 93.51 % Negative Predictive Value = 100.00 % (*) 95% CI: 87.11 % to 100.00 % Left Screening DPOAE to Left Screening HFPTA Sensitivity = 100.00 % 95% CI: 40.23 % to 100.00 % Specificity = 96.43 % 95% CI: 81.59 % to 99.40 % Positive = 80.00 % (*) 95% CI: 28.81 % to 96.70 % Negative PredictiveValue = 100.00 % (*) 95% CI: 87.11 % to 100.00 % Left Standard PTA to Left Screening DPOAE Sensitivity = 100.00 % 95% CI: 30.48 % to 100.00 % Specificity = 93.10 % 95% CI: 77.19 % to 98.95 % Positive PredictiveValue = 60.00 % (*) 95% CI: 15.40 % to 93.51 % Negative Predictive Value = 100.00 % (*) 95% CI: 87.11 % to 100.00 % Right Standard PTA to Right Screening DPOAE Sensitivity = 100.00 % 95% CI: 30.48 % to 100.00 % Specificity = 93.10 % 95% CI: 77.19 % to 98.95 % PositivePredictiveValue = 60.00 % (*) 95% CI: 15.40 % to 93.51 % Negative Predictive Value = 100.00 % (*) 95% CI: 87.11 % to 100.00 % Left Diagnostic HFPTA to Left Screening DPOAE Sensitivity = 100.00 % 95% CI: 40.23 % to 100.00 % Specificity = 96.43 % 95% CI: 81.59 % to 99.40 % Positive Predictive Value = 80.00 % (*) 95% CI: 28.81 % to 96.70 % Negative PredictiveValue = 100.00 % (*) 95% CI: 87.11 % to 100.00 % Right Diagnostic HFPTA to Right Screening DPOAE Sensitivity = 100.00 % 95% CI: 47.95 % to 100.00 % Specificity = 100.00 % 95% CI: 87.11 % to 100.00 % Positive Predictive Value = 100.00 % (*) 95% CI: 47.95 % to 100.00 % Negative Predictive Value = 100.00 % (*) 95% CI: 87.11 % to 100.00 % Left Diagnostic DPOA to Left Screening DPOAE Sensitivity = 100.00 % 95% CI: 40.23 % to 100.00 % Specificity = 100.00 % 95% CI: 87.54 % to 100.00 % Positive PredictiveValue = 100.00 % (*) 95% CI: 40.23 % to 100.00 % NegativePredictiveValue = 100.00 % (*) 95% CI: 87.54 % to 100.00 % Right Diagnostic DPOA to Right Screening DPOAE Sensitivity = 100.00 % 95% CI: 30.48 % to 100.00 % Specificity = 96.55 % 95% CI: 82.17 % to 99.42 % Positive PredictiveValue = 75.00 % (*) 95% CI: 20.34 % to 95.88 % Negative PredictiveValue = 100.00 % (*) 95% CI: 87.54 % to 100.00 % Result :Overall Screening To Diagnostic Tests Sensitivity = 100.00 % 95% CI: 58.93 % to 100.00 % Specificity = 96.00 % 95% CI: 79.58 % to 99.33 % Positive PredictiveValue = 87.50 % (*) 95% CI: 47.38 % to 97.93 % NegativePredictive= 100.00 % (*) 95% CI: 85.62 % to 100.00 % Discussion and Conclusion Simple and Multiple regression is a mode of multivariate statistics which predicts the most likely value(in this case probability of confirmed diagnosis which is a criterion or dependant variable) from the values of one(simple linear regression) and if two or more other variables called the predictors( in this case screening tests). It can only be predicted if the variables have significant correlation between each other ( correlation coefficient like Kendalls tau and Pearson ‘r’ should be statistically significant. Correlation Coefficient can range from a value of -1 to +1. Positive values means finding of diagnostic results are in line with screening results and vice versa. Types Of Regression Analysis A logistic regression is a statistical method for analyzing the dataset in which there are one or more independent variables that determine an outcome. The outcome is measured with a dichotomous variable (in which there are only two possible outcomes that is ectopic pregnancy or no ectopic pregnancy).Logistic regression thus can be used when the dependant variable is a nominal variable( variable that cannot me measured quantitatively)The goal of a logistic regression is to find out the best fitting (yet biologically reasonable) model to describe the relationship between the dichotomous characteristic of interest (dependent variable = response or outcome variable) and a set of independent (predictor or explanatory) variables. Logistic regression generates the coefficients (and its standard errors and significance levels) of a formula to predict a logit transformation of the probability of presence of a characteristic of interest: Y(Dependant Variable)= constant+ constantX(Independent Variable) This means whenever we assign a value of independent variable it gives the most likely value of a dependant variable. Logit(p)= a0 + b12.3X1 + b 13.2X2+ ……………..+bkXk where a0 is the Y intercept of the regression line and b12.3, b 13.2 and bk are partial regression coefficients where p is the probability of presence of the characteristic of interest. The logit transformation is calculated as the logged odds: Odds= p/1-p= probability of presence of an event/ probability of absence of an event And logit(p)= In[p/1-p] Ordinary Least squares (OLS) regression also predicts the chances or value of a criterion based on predictors but in this case the criterion or dependant variable should be an interval variable.(measurement variable which do not have a real 0 value) OLS Equation Y = ?0 + ?1X1 + ?2X2 + ?3D + e where the ?s are the OLS estimates of the Bs. OLS minimizes the sum of the squared residuals .OLS minimizes SUM e2.The residual, e, is the difference between the actual Y and the predicted Y and has a zero mean. In other words, OLS calculates the slope coefficients so that the difference between the predicted Y and the actual Y is minimized. (The residuals are squared in order to compare negative errors to positive errors more easily.) Cohen's kappa coefficient is a statistical measure of or inter-annotator agreement for qualitative (categorical) items. It is generally thought to be a more robust measure than simple percent agreement calculation since ? takes into account the agreement occurring by chance. Cohen's kappa measures the agreement between two raters who each classify N items into C mutually exclusive categories. The equation for ? is: where Pr(a) is the relative observed agreement among raters(in our case the diagnostic results) and Pr(e) is the hypothetical probability of chance agreement,(screening tests) using the observed data to calculate the probabilities of each observer randomly saying each category. If the raters are in complete agreement then ? = 1. If there is no agreement among results then ?=0.The regression equation has given the basis for the extent of relationship of one result with that of another. From the above principles that can be inferred that all the screening results highly tallies with the diagnostic findings as because wherever the comparisons had been made there is a high partial positive correlation co-efficients and they are significant , This is further confirmed by kappa analysis that the correlations are fair enough in all the occasions and hence there is a match between experimental probability distribution and theoretical probability distribution of findings and screenings.Thus results of screening audiology (hearing) tests to the results of diagnostic audiology tests indicate that screening tests are accurate enough like diagnostic tests in detecting ototoxicity ( reduction in hearing sensitivity that is caused by particular medications such as aminoglycosides antibiotics). Thus the screening HFPTA and screening DPOAE. audiology tests tested confirms the Results of diagnostic audiology tests which are the standard pure tone audiometry (PTA), diagnostic high frequency pure tone audiometry (HFPTA) and diagnostic distortion product otoacoustic emissions (DPOAE). The overall assessment of results was uniform in both male and females and when totality is concerned it reflects all the screening test results confirms diagnostic results of confirmed ototoxicity with aminoglycosides used for treatment of cystic fibrosis.However analysis of all results it is found that Left Standard PTA(Y) to Left Screening DPOAE(X) and Right Standard PTA to Right Screening DPOAE is the most correlated Diagnostic-Screening Test. There has been no errors in that assumption. The reliability of each analysis reflected that the kappa values at 95% CI is very close and thus confers reliability to our estimates. Confidence interval predicts the range of values that can be estimated in the population. Explanation of Sensitivity, Specificity,PPV and NPV (In our experimental context) Sensitivity: probability that a test result (screening) will be positive when the diagnosis (or another screening)is positive (true positive rate).= a / (a+b) Specificity: probability that a test result(screening) will be negative when the diagnosis (or another screening )does not confirm the same (true negative rate).= d / (c+d) Positive likelihood ratio: ratio between the probability of a positive test result given the presence of the diagnosis and the probability of a positive test result given the absence of the diagnosis, i.e.= True positive rate / False positive rate = Sensitivity / (1-Specificity) Negative likelihood ratio: ratio between the probability of a negative test result(screening) given the presence of the diagnosis(or another screening) and the probability of a negative test result given the absence of the diagnosis(or another screening, i.e.= False negative rate / True negative rate = (1-Sensitivity) / Specificity Positive predictive value: probability that the diagnosis is confirmed when the screening is positive. = a / (a+c) Negative predictive value: probability that the diagnosis is not confirmed when the screening test is negative. = d  / (b+d) If the sample sizes in the positive (Diagnosis present) and the negative (Diagnosis absent)) groups do not reflect the real prevalence of the disease, then the Positive and Negative predicted values cannot be estimated and you should ignore those values. Alternatively, when the diagnosis prevalence is known then the positive and negative predictive values can be calculated using the following formula's based on Bayes' theorem: PPV= sensitivity x prevalence/ sensitivity x prevalence + (1-specificity) x (1-prevalence) NPV= specificity x (1-prevalence)/ (1-sensitivity) x prevalence + specificity x (1-prevalence) In these analysis it reflects the specificity, likelihood ratios, PPV &NPV of all the matched tests are very high as far as screening and diagnosis are concerned but it does not reflect to tympanometric tests and otoscopic examinations.We can certainly interpret the screening tests gives us a option to predict ototoxicity where diagnosting testing becomes difficult. Reviewing the hypothesis that we wanted to test- Screening high frequency pure tone audiometry and distortion product otoacoustic emissions performed in outpatients’ clinics and inpatients wards using portable devices are highly sensitive, specific, and has high positive and negative predictive values which indicate enough to accurately detect early signs of aminoglycosides-induced hearing loss and those patients who are not ototoxic( rling out the chance) in comparison to comprehensive audiological tests performed in sound proof audiology clinic which is also confirmed by partial correlation coefficients as given by regression equations with relation to the actual diagnostic tests done, Hence these screening tests can be a good alternative to the diagnostic instruments which might not be feasible to be carried at test sites always. Moreover our analysis reflected that the screening tests were as effective in correlating to female and male patients (7/22 screened for ototoxicity versus 8/22 diagnostically confirmed for ototoxicity in females) and similarly (10/10 screened with ototoxicity exactly related with 10/10 patients who were not at all diagnosed with ototoxicity). From this study we can find the incidence of AG related ototoxicity in females(at least) as 34% (8/22 patients ototoxicity diagnosed) while males have a less incidence( in fact 0 in this study) of ototoxicity, Out of all the DPOAE screening and HFPTA was amongst the most sensitive tests with high reproducibility. References for Results Gardner IA, Greiner M (2006) Receiver-operating characteristic curves and likelihood ratios: improvements over traditional methods for the evaluation and application of veterinary clinical pathology tests. Veterinary Clinical Pathology, 35:8-17. Griner PF, Mayewski RJ, Mushlin AI, Greenland P (1981) Selection and interpretation of diagnostic tests and procedures. Annals of Internal Medicine, 94, 555-600. Hanley JA, McNeil BJ (1982) The meaning and use of the area under a receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve. Radiology, 143, 29-36. Diagnostic test calculator:http://www.medcalc.org/calc/diagnostic_test.php Metz CE (1978) Basic principles of ROC analysis. Seminars in Nuclear Medicine, 8, 283-298 Zhou XH, NA Obuchowski, DK McClish (2002) Statistical methods in diagnostic medicine. New York: Wiley. Zweig MH, Campbell G (1993) Receiver-operating characteristic (ROC) plots: a fundamental evaluation tool in clinical medicine. Clinical Chemistry, 39, 561-577. Read More
Cite this document
  • APA
  • MLA
  • CHICAGO
(“Assessing the validity of screening audiological tests in detecting Dissertation”, n.d.)
Assessing the validity of screening audiological tests in detecting Dissertation. Retrieved from https://studentshare.org/health-sciences-medicine/1484585-assessing-the-validity-of-screening-audiological
(Assessing the Validity of Screening Audiological Tests in Detecting Dissertation)
Assessing the Validity of Screening Audiological Tests in Detecting Dissertation. https://studentshare.org/health-sciences-medicine/1484585-assessing-the-validity-of-screening-audiological.
“Assessing the Validity of Screening Audiological Tests in Detecting Dissertation”, n.d. https://studentshare.org/health-sciences-medicine/1484585-assessing-the-validity-of-screening-audiological.
  • Cited: 0 times

CHECK THESE SAMPLES OF Validity of Screening Audiological Tests in Detecting Signs of Ototoxicity in Cystic Fibrosis Children

Aminoglycoside and Hearing Loss in Children with Cystic Fibrosis

This paper ''Aminoglycoside and Hearing Loss in Children with cystic fibrosis'' tells us that aminoglycoside-based antibiotics are being considered as one of the primary sources of auditory disorders among human beings, and especially in children.... cystic fibrosis also accompanies hearing disorders.... Similarly, ototoxicity can ruin and blemish the vestibular system in children.... here are numerous works done both in the past and present about the aminoglycoside-induced hearing loss in children and how this disease can be detected in the early stages to avoid permanent deafness....
11 Pages (2750 words) Thesis

Cystic fibrosis

3 Pages (750 words) Case Study

Cystic Fibrosis

Medical archives indicate that, among the litany of genetic diseases known to affect man, cystic fibrosis constitutes one of the thoroughly researched and understood diseases.... cystic fibrosis has been identified as a progressive disorder that affects thousands of people and often results to fatalities.... To better provide insight of cystic fibrosis, an intricate understanding is essential on its historical evolution, causes, signs and symptoms, prevalence rates, treatment and management....
10 Pages (2500 words) Research Paper

Cystic Fibrosis

Existence of cystic fibrosis has been known for a very long time from stories of old cleaning ceremonies where foreheads of children were licked to see if they were salty and if they were those children were feared to die soon due to the disease which we today call cystic.... Other significant report of pancreatic changes with features compatible to that of cystic fibrosis came from Margaret Harper of Sydney who reported congenital steatorrhea due to pancreatic defect (Harper, 45-56)....
4 Pages (1000 words) Research Paper

Analysis of Cystic Fibrosis Disease

While in some people the It is possible that several hundred different mutations of the gene exist than can cause cystic fibrosis.... It is called the cystic fibrosis trans membrane conductance regulator (CFTR).... In people with cystic fibrosis the defective gene inhibits the reabsorbing of chloride and sodium ions resulting in an excess of sodium chloride or very salty sweat.... In the respiratory tract of persons with cystic fibrosis there is a reduction of the secretion of sodium ions and water caused from the inability of epithelial cell membranes to influence the hydration of mucus....
11 Pages (2750 words) Essay

Cystic Fibrosis Issues

The gene in question is called cystic fibrosis transmembrane conductance regulator (CFTR) which normally expresses a protein that helps chloride ions move in and out of epithelial cells lining.... Furthermore, cystic fibrosis also causes too much salt to be excreted in the sweat glands, resulting in electrolyte imbalance.... he pattern of inheritance for cystic fibrosis is homozygous recessive.... he standard approach to the diagnosis of cystic fibrosis is made by measuring the chloride content of an individual's sweat....
2 Pages (500 words) Essay

Cystic Fibrosis Community Assessment

The goal of the present paper is to conduct a community health care service assessment with a focus on the cystic fibrosis prevalence within the community.... The specific health problem of this community the prevalence of cystic fibrosis which has not been given much attention by most health care givers, yet it disrupts the daily activities of the community.... However, single parent homes consisting of widows and unmarried mothers are very commong) Lifestyle behaviors that influence health status: Poor eating habits by most individuals suffering from cystic fibrosis have always worsened their conditions by igniting Diabetes....
5 Pages (1250 words) Essay

Cystic Fibrosis Lung Transplantation

The paper "cystic fibrosis Lung Transplantation" utilizes evidence and factual data that many lives have been saved from the transplantation and the earlier prevention or earlier diagnosis of the disease as this will help the patient keen on drugs and body maintenance.... cystic fibrosis is a genetic disease with no cure at this time.... In the United States, there are an estimated 30,000 individuals diagnosed with cystic fibrosis ('About cf,' 2014)....
15 Pages (3750 words) Research Paper
sponsored ads
We use cookies to create the best experience for you. Keep on browsing if you are OK with that, or find out how to manage cookies.
Contact Us