Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

An open-source stethoscope that costs between $2.5 and $5 to produce

github.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 135 posts

Re: An open-source stethoscope that costs between $2.5 and $5 to produce

#111

Post by f1shy »

rustyhancock wrote: post #68
hex4def6 wrote: post #66

Hmmm. Looking at: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/figure?id=10.1371/... I'm not sure I believe the graphs. For example, here's another frequency response chart of some stethoscopes: https://www.researchgate.net/figure/a-Frequency-response-of-... How is it that professional stethoscopes can be that different, and yet this 3D printed one can match a gold-standard one almost exactly? From what I can tell there…

It's a bit of a head scratcher. It would require abject incompetence on the part of jellybean stephoscope manufactorers for this to make sense. On the other hand the reason Litmann stephoscopes are expensive is target market (doctors), build quality and amortization of cost over probably a decade of use. Stephoscopes are a metanym for doctor, and doctors don't want cheap stephoscopes. It reminds me of the product to…

And patients. What would you think if the doctor in front of use is using a plastic thingy that seems more come from a doctor-toy-set?

Re: An open-source stethoscope that costs between $2.5 and $5 to produce

#112

Post by f1shy »

hex4def6 wrote: post #66

Hmmm. Looking at: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/figure?id=10.1371/... I'm not sure I believe the graphs. For example, here's another frequency response chart of some stethoscopes: https://www.researchgate.net/figure/a-Frequency-response-of-... How is it that professional stethoscopes can be that different, and yet this 3D printed one can match a gold-standard one almost exactly? From what I can tell there…

You can measure all the parameters you want. The question is: does it really matter? I know many doctors, and one of my favorite questions is about stethoscopes: I have unanimously the answer "I could just roll a piece of paper and if the room is quiet enough, I can do my work". My grandpa used one made out of wood, just a cone. Once, I was fascinated by a Littmann, with bluetooth audio, I told a friend doctor, that would be great (thinking about a present) the answer was "That is all hype, I can do with a $2 piece exactly the same". I pointed out the possibility to record the sound, to possibly defense in case of being sued: she laughed out loud, said is unpractical to record everything, would take too much time, and again, just a toy.

Re: An open-source stethoscope that costs between $2.5 and $5 to produce

#113

Post by ZiiS »

hex4def6 wrote: post #66

Hmmm. Looking at: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/figure?id=10.1371/... I'm not sure I believe the graphs. For example, here's another frequency response chart of some stethoscopes: https://www.researchgate.net/figure/a-Frequency-response-of-... How is it that professional stethoscopes can be that different, and yet this 3D printed one can match a gold-standard one almost exactly? From what I can tell there…

That label the graph "log dB" which seems a very odd choice if you wanted to show differences

Re: An open-source stethoscope that costs between $2.5 and $5 to produce

#114

Post by close04 »

throwaway2037 wrote: post #100
copperx wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But where do they fail? What does a good stethoscope bring? better and clearer amplification?

Yeah, that comment also sent off internal alarms for me also. It would be a great blog post (or YouTube video) for someone to buy a bunch of stethoscopes and objectively test them. I would bet that there is a 10 USD model that is 98% as good as 200 USD models from 3M Littmann. And similar to the neverending arguments about "premium high-fidelity stereo equipment", I bet most doctors cannot tell the difference between…

> someone to buy a bunch of stethoscopes and objectively test them. I would bet that there is a 10 USD model that is 98% as good as 200 USD models from 3M Littmann.

It's the same as every other field, cars, phones, or computer cases, you name it. Something can be artificially expensive, but it can also be because it uses better materials, has more features, is built to higher standards. And some things can't be tested properly in a small scale review. Longevity, for example.

But there are factors that influence the premium price. The build construction - quality of the construction, quality and feel of materials, flexibility/rigidity of components, comfort of the ear tips and why not, even color options or the logo that shows you don't cheap out on equipment. Functionality - amplification, frequency response, double sided, 2 diaphragms can be used on children and adults. And then you have nice features like tunable diaphragms, or warm rims/sleeves for making it more comfortable for the patient.

Like for any other product, you'll save on the things you don't care about. The neck is stiff, the earpiece is uncomfortable, the tubing degrades, it's ice-cold, not great for kids or thin patients, but the sounds come in loud and clear enough and it's half the price.

Re: An open-source stethoscope that costs between $2.5 and $5 to produce

#116

Post by morkalork »

f1shy wrote: post #112
hex4def6 wrote: post #66

Hmmm. Looking at: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/figure?id=10.1371/... I'm not sure I believe the graphs. For example, here's another frequency response chart of some stethoscopes: https://www.researchgate.net/figure/a-Frequency-response-of-... How is it that professional stethoscopes can be that different, and yet this 3D printed one can match a gold-standard one almost exactly? From what I can tell there…

You can measure all the parameters you want. The question is: does it really matter? I know many doctors, and one of my favorite questions is about stethoscopes: I have unanimously the answer "I could just roll a piece of paper and if the room is quiet enough, I can do my work". My grandpa used one made out of wood, just a cone. Once, I was fascinated by a Littmann, with bluetooth audio, I told a friend doctor, that…

Lots of nurses and EMTs swear by the amplified Bluetooth stethoscopes but unlike a Dr working in a nice quiet office, they're often in much noisier conditions.

Re: An open-source stethoscope that costs between $2.5 and $5 to produce

#118

Post by GuB-42 »

rustyhancock wrote: post #68
hex4def6 wrote: post #66

Hmmm. Looking at: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/figure?id=10.1371/... I'm not sure I believe the graphs. For example, here's another frequency response chart of some stethoscopes: https://www.researchgate.net/figure/a-Frequency-response-of-... How is it that professional stethoscopes can be that different, and yet this 3D printed one can match a gold-standard one almost exactly? From what I can tell there…

It's a bit of a head scratcher. It would require abject incompetence on the part of jellybean stephoscope manufactorers for this to make sense. On the other hand the reason Litmann stephoscopes are expensive is target market (doctors), build quality and amortization of cost over probably a decade of use. Stephoscopes are a metanym for doctor, and doctors don't want cheap stephoscopes. It reminds me of the product to…

There is something about using quality tools that goes beyond practical.

For example, I like coding on a nice keyboard, and I think I am not the only one here. But realistically, the cheap keyboards that litter offices everywhere work just as well. Simply, I don't enjoy using them, and when it is something you work with every day on a job that pays well, you can afford a few hundred dollars worth of luxury once in a decade.

As someone said, there is also the question of image. If you are a professional, your customers (/patients if you are a doctor) expect you to have professional tools. For example, a contractor arriving with that $10 Ikea toolbox may rise a few eyebrows. Maybe that's all he needs and he can do a terrific job with it, but he may not be taken seriously.

Re: An open-source stethoscope that costs between $2.5 and $5 to produce

#119

Post by rounce »

OJFord wrote: post #109
fluoridation wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

steThoscope I normally wouldn't comment just to correct a misspelling, but it's pretty consistent and it's an entirely different sound, as well as being what the thread is about.

To some percentage of the British population, I fink you'll find it's exactly the same sound.

It isn't always exactly the same sound even when th-fronted, the manner of doing so is regionally distinct and in many cases, to a sensitive ear, a th-fronted 'th' can be clearly discerned from an 'f' based on sound alone. Some accents will make a stronger distinction by softening the 'th' and/or extending it into the subsequent vowel.

Re: An open-source stethoscope that costs between $2.5 and $5 to produce

#120

Post by bombcar »

morkalork wrote: post #116
f1shy wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can measure all the parameters you want. The question is: does it really matter? I know many doctors, and one of my favorite questions is about stethoscopes: I have unanimously the answer "I could just roll a piece of paper and if the room is quiet enough, I can do my work". My grandpa used one made out of wood, just a cone. Once, I was fascinated by a Littmann, with bluetooth audio, I told a friend doctor, that…

Lots of nurses and EMTs swear by the amplified Bluetooth stethoscopes but unlike a Dr working in a nice quiet office, they're often in much noisier conditions.

The difference between a $100 mic and one that costs ten to a hundred times as much is not how well they work in perfect conditions, but how well they work in the worst conditions imaginable.

Doctors often have the seniority and authority to make the room quiet; nurses and EMTs are often working in much different conditions.

Post reply on HN