CONCLUSION
When ENT physicians evaluate the results of the audiological findings independent from all other diagnostic tools (autoscopic examination, patient history, radiological tests, etc.), they can predict the actual pathology, but it turns out that error rates are higher than hit rates. The incomplete interpretation of audiological tests, emphasizing the type of hearing loss rather than possible pathology in audiological reports, and the incidence of pathologies can be considered as potential factors in increasing the error rate.
One of the critical results of the study is that more emphasis should be placed on audiological evaluation in the training of ENT residents. Another significant result is that audiological reports should be designed to remind the ENT physician of possible pathologies. The format and the content of the audiological report may be the subject of another study. However, the indication of only the type of hearing loss in the reports does not have a crucial role in detecting the pathology.
Although not a focal point in this study, another important point to be considered is the risk created by the fact that audiological reporting is limited to the tests requested by the ENT physician. For the audiologists to clarify the possible pathology, applying additional tests on their initiative or clearly stating in their report that further tests are required will increase the reliability of the diagnosis.
Responsibilities of audiologists and otologists and reporting of audiological tests may vary from country to country. Therefore, the instrumental value of audiological reports may differ. For example, in countries such as the USA, audiology is considered as an independent science, and in Germany, ENT physicians are more dominant in the audiological field [8]. Examining these different schools in terms of the instrumental value of audiological tests may provide effective results in the field, enhancing the critical decision making process.