Neil Skjodt, a researcher at Canada's University of Alberta, claims that even the most cutting-edge stethoscopes in use today offer sound quality far inferior to that of consumer-grade MP3 players, concluding that doctors should switch to them -- also because it would allow them to store heartbeats and breathing recordings for later review.
His idea makes sense, although the mechanics of how it would work are a bit hazy. According to the Australian IT article that references the study, "doctors might soon press their MP3 players to patients' chests to examine heartbeat and breathing," but the article gives no other indication as to how the sound data would be recorded. I assume the Australian IT article has that part wrong, because a stethoscope-like sensor would be superior at detecting heartbeats to the tiny microphone included with recording-capable MP3 players.
When it comes to tracking the development of subtle heart murmurs, changes in respiratory function, and so on, surely digital recording devices would trump amnesiac stethoscopes. Perhaps the best way to go would be to release a stethoscope head witha mic inside of it that can store heartbeats andbreathing patterns as voice recording files on an iPod.
