Halil Erdem Özel, Ahmet Taha Karakuzu, Hümeyra Temir, Muhammed Alpay, Sebla Çalışkan, Fatih Özdoğan, Selahattin Genç
{"title":"Towards an optimized monothermal caloric screening test: comparing stimuli and thresholds.","authors":"Halil Erdem Özel, Ahmet Taha Karakuzu, Hümeyra Temir, Muhammed Alpay, Sebla Çalışkan, Fatih Özdoğan, Selahattin Genç","doi":"10.1080/14992027.2025.2568653","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>Monothermal caloric testing (MCT) shows potential as a screening method in vestibular assessment; however, the optimal stimulus modality and diagnostic threshold remain unclear. This study aimed to identify, within a single investigation, the most effective stimulus type (air or water; warm or cool) and the optimal cut-off threshold (15% or 25%) for maximising the diagnostic performance of MCT.</p><p><strong>Design: </strong>Retrospective study.</p><p><strong>Study sample: </strong>Bithermal caloric test (BCT) results from 202 adults (103 water, 99 air) were analysed. MCT results were assessed at 15% and 25% thresholds based on sensitivity, specificity, and overall diagnostic accuracy, using BCT as the reference standard.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Warm stimuli demonstrated higher sensitivity, with warm air yielding the highest value (86.7%), while cool stimuli showed greater specificity, with cool water reaching the highest specificity (78.7%) at the 25% threshold. Warm air MCT resulted in the lowest false negative rate (6%) and highest diagnostic accuracy (94%), reducing the need for BCT to 57.6% of patients. Lowering the threshold to 15% slightly improved accuracy (95.9%) but increased BCT referrals (64.6%).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Warm air MCT appears to be an efficient screening tool for detecting unilateral vestibular weakness, offering high diagnostic accuracy while potentially reducing the need for comprehensive BCT.</p>","PeriodicalId":13759,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Audiology","volume":" ","pages":"1-8"},"PeriodicalIF":1.9000,"publicationDate":"2025-10-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Journal of Audiology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/14992027.2025.2568653","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"AUDIOLOGY & SPEECH-LANGUAGE PATHOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Objectives: Monothermal caloric testing (MCT) shows potential as a screening method in vestibular assessment; however, the optimal stimulus modality and diagnostic threshold remain unclear. This study aimed to identify, within a single investigation, the most effective stimulus type (air or water; warm or cool) and the optimal cut-off threshold (15% or 25%) for maximising the diagnostic performance of MCT.
Design: Retrospective study.
Study sample: Bithermal caloric test (BCT) results from 202 adults (103 water, 99 air) were analysed. MCT results were assessed at 15% and 25% thresholds based on sensitivity, specificity, and overall diagnostic accuracy, using BCT as the reference standard.
Results: Warm stimuli demonstrated higher sensitivity, with warm air yielding the highest value (86.7%), while cool stimuli showed greater specificity, with cool water reaching the highest specificity (78.7%) at the 25% threshold. Warm air MCT resulted in the lowest false negative rate (6%) and highest diagnostic accuracy (94%), reducing the need for BCT to 57.6% of patients. Lowering the threshold to 15% slightly improved accuracy (95.9%) but increased BCT referrals (64.6%).
Conclusions: Warm air MCT appears to be an efficient screening tool for detecting unilateral vestibular weakness, offering high diagnostic accuracy while potentially reducing the need for comprehensive BCT.
期刊介绍:
International Journal of Audiology is committed to furthering development of a scientifically robust evidence base for audiology. The journal is published by the British Society of Audiology, the International Society of Audiology and the Nordic Audiological Society.