Cargando…
An in vitro acoustic analysis and comparison of popular stethoscopes
PURPOSE: To compare the performance of various commercially available stethoscopes using standard acoustic engineering criteria, under recording studio conditions. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Eighteen stethoscopes (11 acoustic, 7 electronic) were analyzed using standard acoustic analysis techniques under...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
Dove Medical Press
2019
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6339642/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30697087 http://dx.doi.org/10.2147/MDER.S186076 |
_version_ | 1783388660904755200 |
---|---|
author | Weiss, Daniel Erie, Christine Butera, Joseph Copt, Ryan Yeaw, Glenn Harpster, Mark Hughes, James Salem, Deeb N |
author_facet | Weiss, Daniel Erie, Christine Butera, Joseph Copt, Ryan Yeaw, Glenn Harpster, Mark Hughes, James Salem, Deeb N |
author_sort | Weiss, Daniel |
collection | PubMed |
description | PURPOSE: To compare the performance of various commercially available stethoscopes using standard acoustic engineering criteria, under recording studio conditions. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Eighteen stethoscopes (11 acoustic, 7 electronic) were analyzed using standard acoustic analysis techniques under professional recording studio conditions. An organic phantom that accurately simulated chest cavity acoustics was developed. Test sounds were played via a microphone embedded within it and auscultated at its surface by the stethoscopes. Recordings were made through each stethoscope’s binaurals and/or downloaded (electronic models). Recordings were analyzed using standard studio techniques and software, including assessing ambient noise (AMB) rejection. Frequency ranges were divided into those corresponding to various standard biological sounds (cardiac, respiratory, and gastrointestinal). RESULTS: Loudness and AMB rejection: Overall, electronic stethoscopes, when set to a maximum volume, exhibited greater values of perceived loudness compared to acoustic stethoscopes. Significant variation was seen in AMB rejection capability. Frequency detection: Marked variation was also seen, with some stethoscopes performing better for different ranges (eg, cardiac) vs others (eg, gastrointestinal). CONCLUSION: The acoustic properties of stethoscopes varied considerably in loudness, AMB rejection, and frequency response. Stethoscope choice should take into account clinical conditions to be auscultated and the noise level of the environment. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-6339642 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2019 |
publisher | Dove Medical Press |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-63396422019-01-29 An in vitro acoustic analysis and comparison of popular stethoscopes Weiss, Daniel Erie, Christine Butera, Joseph Copt, Ryan Yeaw, Glenn Harpster, Mark Hughes, James Salem, Deeb N Med Devices (Auckl) Original Research PURPOSE: To compare the performance of various commercially available stethoscopes using standard acoustic engineering criteria, under recording studio conditions. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Eighteen stethoscopes (11 acoustic, 7 electronic) were analyzed using standard acoustic analysis techniques under professional recording studio conditions. An organic phantom that accurately simulated chest cavity acoustics was developed. Test sounds were played via a microphone embedded within it and auscultated at its surface by the stethoscopes. Recordings were made through each stethoscope’s binaurals and/or downloaded (electronic models). Recordings were analyzed using standard studio techniques and software, including assessing ambient noise (AMB) rejection. Frequency ranges were divided into those corresponding to various standard biological sounds (cardiac, respiratory, and gastrointestinal). RESULTS: Loudness and AMB rejection: Overall, electronic stethoscopes, when set to a maximum volume, exhibited greater values of perceived loudness compared to acoustic stethoscopes. Significant variation was seen in AMB rejection capability. Frequency detection: Marked variation was also seen, with some stethoscopes performing better for different ranges (eg, cardiac) vs others (eg, gastrointestinal). CONCLUSION: The acoustic properties of stethoscopes varied considerably in loudness, AMB rejection, and frequency response. Stethoscope choice should take into account clinical conditions to be auscultated and the noise level of the environment. Dove Medical Press 2019-01-15 /pmc/articles/PMC6339642/ /pubmed/30697087 http://dx.doi.org/10.2147/MDER.S186076 Text en © 2019 Weiss et al. This work is published and licensed by Dove Medical Press Limited The full terms of this license are available at https://www.dovepress.com/terms.php and incorporate the Creative Commons Attribution – Non Commercial (unported, v3.0) License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/). By accessing the work you hereby accept the Terms. Non-commercial uses of the work are permitted without any further permission from Dove Medical Press Limited, provided the work is properly attributed. |
spellingShingle | Original Research Weiss, Daniel Erie, Christine Butera, Joseph Copt, Ryan Yeaw, Glenn Harpster, Mark Hughes, James Salem, Deeb N An in vitro acoustic analysis and comparison of popular stethoscopes |
title | An in vitro acoustic analysis and comparison of popular stethoscopes |
title_full | An in vitro acoustic analysis and comparison of popular stethoscopes |
title_fullStr | An in vitro acoustic analysis and comparison of popular stethoscopes |
title_full_unstemmed | An in vitro acoustic analysis and comparison of popular stethoscopes |
title_short | An in vitro acoustic analysis and comparison of popular stethoscopes |
title_sort | in vitro acoustic analysis and comparison of popular stethoscopes |
topic | Original Research |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6339642/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30697087 http://dx.doi.org/10.2147/MDER.S186076 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT weissdaniel aninvitroacousticanalysisandcomparisonofpopularstethoscopes AT eriechristine aninvitroacousticanalysisandcomparisonofpopularstethoscopes AT buterajoseph aninvitroacousticanalysisandcomparisonofpopularstethoscopes AT coptryan aninvitroacousticanalysisandcomparisonofpopularstethoscopes AT yeawglenn aninvitroacousticanalysisandcomparisonofpopularstethoscopes AT harpstermark aninvitroacousticanalysisandcomparisonofpopularstethoscopes AT hughesjames aninvitroacousticanalysisandcomparisonofpopularstethoscopes AT salemdeebn aninvitroacousticanalysisandcomparisonofpopularstethoscopes AT weissdaniel invitroacousticanalysisandcomparisonofpopularstethoscopes AT eriechristine invitroacousticanalysisandcomparisonofpopularstethoscopes AT buterajoseph invitroacousticanalysisandcomparisonofpopularstethoscopes AT coptryan invitroacousticanalysisandcomparisonofpopularstethoscopes AT yeawglenn invitroacousticanalysisandcomparisonofpopularstethoscopes AT harpstermark invitroacousticanalysisandcomparisonofpopularstethoscopes AT hughesjames invitroacousticanalysisandcomparisonofpopularstethoscopes AT salemdeebn invitroacousticanalysisandcomparisonofpopularstethoscopes |