ArticleBrazilian journal of otorhinolaryngology
Assessment of the light intensity of otoscopes utilized in teaching hospitals.
Article in Brazilian journal of otorhinolaryngology. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed, 0 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionTo attain an accurate otoscopic diagnosis, a functioning device with adequate capacity must be used.
objectiveEvaluate the light intensity of otoscopes, comparing it utilizing the batteries present at the moment of calibration and after new batteries were supplied.
methodsCross-sectional study of a historical cohort, which assessed 38 otoscopes, measuring the light intensity with the batteries present at the moment of assessment compared to the intensity with new batteries, as well as charge of the test batteries and the new batteries.
resultsThe mean of the sum of new batteries' charge was 3.19V, and of the test batteries was 2.70V, representing a decrease of 18.02% in charge. The mean luminosity with the new batteries was 366.89lumens, whereas in the test batteries it was 188.32lumens, representing a decrease of 83.75% in the light intensity. Student's t-test was applied for data comparison, showing a statistical difference between the light intensity with the original batteries and the new batteries (p=0.0001; CI=0.95).
conclusionThere was a statistically significant difference between the proportions of light intensity in the otoscopes. A small variation in battery charge results in a great variation in light.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.