Open Access
CC BY 4.0 · Int Arch Otorhinolaryngol 2025; 29(02): s00441801314
DOI: 10.1055/s-0044-1801314
Original Research

Distortion-product Otoacoustic Emissions in Diagnostic Versus Portable Equipment: A Comparison of Animal Models

1   Laboratory for Teaching and Research in Otorhinolaryngology, School of Medicine, University of Brasília, Brasília, DF, Brazil
,
Vanessa Silva Pinto
1   Laboratory for Teaching and Research in Otorhinolaryngology, School of Medicine, University of Brasília, Brasília, DF, Brazil
,
Juliana Gusmão de Araújo
1   Laboratory for Teaching and Research in Otorhinolaryngology, School of Medicine, University of Brasília, Brasília, DF, Brazil
,
Lucieny Martins Serra
1   Laboratory for Teaching and Research in Otorhinolaryngology, School of Medicine, University of Brasília, Brasília, DF, Brazil
,
Andre Luiz Lopes Sampaio
1   Laboratory for Teaching and Research in Otorhinolaryngology, School of Medicine, University of Brasília, Brasília, DF, Brazil
› Author Affiliations

Funding The authors declare that they did not receive financial support from agencies in the public, private, or non-profit sectors to conduct the present study.
PreviewZoom

Abstract

Introduction Many protocols carried out in animal studies use equipment developed for humans. Therefore, the equipment available on the market must be known in detail, as well as how the criteria to be evaluated are presented.

Objective To analyze the existence of an association between the amplitude and signal-to-noise ratios of distortion-product otoacoustic emissions using two methodologies (diagnostic and portable/screening equipment) in animal models.

Methods Experimental study approved by the Animal Use Ethics Committee, with a sample of 28 female Wistar rats, which were subjected to anesthesia, manual otoscopy, and distortion-product otoacoustic emission (DPOAE) examination at 4 to 8 kHz with the 2 pieces of equipment.

Results The mean amplitude values with the ILO (Otodynamics Ltd., Hatfield, United Kingdom) and OtoRead equipment (Interacoustics A/S, Middelfart, Denmark) were respectively 20.5 dB and 7.1 dB at 4 kHz; 31.8 dB and 19.37 dB at 6 kHz; and 31.4 dB and 25.1 dB at 8 kHz. The mean signal-to-noise ratios with the ILO and OtoRead equipment were respectively 20.9 dB and 25.1 dB at 4 kHz; 35.8 dB and 37.0 dB at 6 kHz; and 39.7 dB and 40.6 dB at 8 kHz. There was no statistically significant difference in signal-to-noise ratios at 6 and 8 kHz. When the data were classified as normal/abnormal, 100% agreement was found between the methodologies.

Conclusion An association was found in the analysis of the mean signal-to-noise ratio at 6 and 8 kHz between the 2 methodologies (diagnosis and portable/screening equipment).



Publication History

Received: 28 November 2023

Accepted: 10 October 2024

Article published online:
07 May 2025

© 2025. The Author(s). This is an open access article published by Thieme under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, permitting copying and reproduction so long as the original work is given appropriate credit (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/)

Thieme Revinter Publicações Ltda.
Rua do Matoso 170, Rio de Janeiro, RJ, CEP 20270-135, Brazil

Bibliographical Record
Gabriela Guenther Ribeiro Novanta, Vanessa Silva Pinto, Juliana Gusmão de Araújo, Lucieny Martins Serra, Andre Luiz Lopes Sampaio. Distortion-product Otoacoustic Emissions in Diagnostic Versus Portable Equipment: A Comparison of Animal Models. Int Arch Otorhinolaryngol 2025; 29: s00441801314.
DOI: 10.1055/s-0044-1801314