An in vitro acoustic analysis and comparison of popular stethoscopes

Daniel Weiss,1,2 Christine Erie,1,2 Joseph Butera III,2 Ryan Copt,2 Glenn Yeaw,2 Mark Harpster,2 James Hughes,2,3 Deeb N Salem4 1Department of Medicine, Charles E. Schmidt College of Medicine, Florida Atlantic University, Boca Raton, FL, USA; 2Bongiovi Medical & Health Technologies, Inc., Po...

Descripción completa

Guardado en:

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales:	Weiss D, Erie C, Butera III J, Copt R, Yeaw G, Harpster M, Hughes J, Salem DN
Formato:	article
Lenguaje:	EN
Publicado:	Dove Medical Press 2019
Materias:	Stethoscope analysis acoustic noise signal Medical technology R855-855.5
Acceso en línea:	https://doaj.org/article/47b618cd9c804f48a9d8a4621fb58898
Etiquetas:	Agregar Etiqueta Sin Etiquetas, Sea el primero en etiquetar este registro!

id	oai:doaj.org-article:47b618cd9c804f48a9d8a4621fb58898
record_format	dspace
spelling	oai:doaj.org-article:47b618cd9c804f48a9d8a4621fb588982021-12-02T07:21:51ZAn in vitro acoustic analysis and comparison of popular stethoscopes1179-1470https://doaj.org/article/47b618cd9c804f48a9d8a4621fb588982019-01-01T00:00:00Zhttps://www.dovepress.com/an-in-vitro-acoustic-analysis-and-comparison-of-popular-stethoscopes-peer-reviewed-article-MDERhttps://doaj.org/toc/1179-1470Daniel Weiss,1,2 Christine Erie,1,2 Joseph Butera III,2 Ryan Copt,2 Glenn Yeaw,2 Mark Harpster,2 James Hughes,2,3 Deeb N Salem4 1Department of Medicine, Charles E. Schmidt College of Medicine, Florida Atlantic University, Boca Raton, FL, USA; 2Bongiovi Medical & Health Technologies, Inc., Port St Lucie, FL, USA; 3Department of Surgery, University of Mississippi Medical Center, Jackson, MS, USA; 4Department of Medicine, Tufts Medical Center, Boston, MA, USA 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. Keywords: stethoscope, analysis, acoustic, noise, signalWeiss DErie CButera III JCopt RYeaw GHarpster MHughes JSalem DNDove Medical PressarticleStethoscopeanalysisacousticnoisesignalMedical technologyR855-855.5ENMedical Devices: Evidence and Research, Vol Volume 12, Pp 41-52 (2019)
institution	DOAJ
collection	DOAJ
language	EN
topic	Stethoscope analysis acoustic noise signal Medical technology R855-855.5
spellingShingle	Stethoscope analysis acoustic noise signal Medical technology R855-855.5 Weiss D Erie C Butera III J Copt R Yeaw G Harpster M Hughes J Salem DN An in vitro acoustic analysis and comparison of popular stethoscopes
description	Daniel Weiss,1,2 Christine Erie,1,2 Joseph Butera III,2 Ryan Copt,2 Glenn Yeaw,2 Mark Harpster,2 James Hughes,2,3 Deeb N Salem4 1Department of Medicine, Charles E. Schmidt College of Medicine, Florida Atlantic University, Boca Raton, FL, USA; 2Bongiovi Medical & Health Technologies, Inc., Port St Lucie, FL, USA; 3Department of Surgery, University of Mississippi Medical Center, Jackson, MS, USA; 4Department of Medicine, Tufts Medical Center, Boston, MA, USA 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. Keywords: stethoscope, analysis, acoustic, noise, signal
format	article
author	Weiss D Erie C Butera III J Copt R Yeaw G Harpster M Hughes J Salem DN
author_facet	Weiss D Erie C Butera III J Copt R Yeaw G Harpster M Hughes J Salem DN
author_sort	Weiss D
title	An in vitro acoustic analysis and comparison of popular stethoscopes
title_short	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_sort	in vitro acoustic analysis and comparison of popular stethoscopes
publisher	Dove Medical Press
publishDate	2019
url	https://doaj.org/article/47b618cd9c804f48a9d8a4621fb58898
work_keys_str_mv	AT weissd aninvitroacousticanalysisandcomparisonofpopularstethoscopes AT eriec aninvitroacousticanalysisandcomparisonofpopularstethoscopes AT buteraiiij aninvitroacousticanalysisandcomparisonofpopularstethoscopes AT coptr aninvitroacousticanalysisandcomparisonofpopularstethoscopes AT yeawg aninvitroacousticanalysisandcomparisonofpopularstethoscopes AT harpsterm aninvitroacousticanalysisandcomparisonofpopularstethoscopes AT hughesj aninvitroacousticanalysisandcomparisonofpopularstethoscopes AT salemdn aninvitroacousticanalysisandcomparisonofpopularstethoscopes AT weissd invitroacousticanalysisandcomparisonofpopularstethoscopes AT eriec invitroacousticanalysisandcomparisonofpopularstethoscopes AT buteraiiij invitroacousticanalysisandcomparisonofpopularstethoscopes AT coptr invitroacousticanalysisandcomparisonofpopularstethoscopes AT yeawg invitroacousticanalysisandcomparisonofpopularstethoscopes AT harpsterm invitroacousticanalysisandcomparisonofpopularstethoscopes AT hughesj invitroacousticanalysisandcomparisonofpopularstethoscopes AT salemdn invitroacousticanalysisandcomparisonofpopularstethoscopes
_version_	1718399454279630848

An in vitro acoustic analysis and comparison of popular stethoscopes

Ejemplares similares