{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.021957340025094103, 'fraction_numerical': 0.006900878293601004, 'mean_word_length': 5.701680672268908, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Digital otoscopy versus microscopy: How correct and confident are ear experts in their diagnoses?

Introduction With the growing popularity of telemedicine and tele-diagnostics, clinical validation of new devices is essential. This study sought to investigate whether high-definition digital still images of the eardrum provide sufficient information to make a correct diagnosis, as compared with the gold standard view provided by clinical microscopy. Methods Twelve fellowship-trained ear physicians (neurotologists) reviewed the same set of 210 digital otoscope eardrum images. Participants diagnosed each image as normal or, if abnormal, they selected from seven types of ear pathology. Diagnostic percentage correct for each pathology was compared with a gold standard of diagnosis using clinical microscopy with adjunct audiometry and/or tympanometry. Participants also rated their degree of confidence for each diagnosis. Results Overall correctness of diagnosis for ear pathologies ranged from 48.6–100%, depending on the type of pathology. Neurotologists were 72% correct in identifying eardrums as normal. Reviewers’ confidence in diagnosis varied substantially among types of pathology, as well as among participants. Discussion High-definition digital still images of eardrums provided sufficient information for neurotologists to make correct diagnoses for some pathologies. However, some diagnoses, such as middle ear effusion, were more difficult to diagnose when based only on a still image. Levels of confidence of reviewers did not generally correlate with diagnostic ability.