ArticleLaryngoscope investigative otolaryngology2020
Telescopic otology referrals: Evaluation of feasibility and acceptability.
Article in Laryngoscope investigative otolaryngology, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.
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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Observational
- Telehealth Approaches for Pediatric Otitis Media and Clinical Outcomes: Scoping Review.Journal of medical Internet research · 2026Article
- Article
- Delivery of remote otology care: a UK pilot feasibility study.BMJ open quality · 2022Article
- Feasibility of Asynchronous and Automated Telemedicine in Otolaryngology: Prospective Cross-Sectional Study.JMIR medical informatics · 2020Article
- Telescopic otology referrals: Evaluation of feasibility and acceptability.Laryngoscope investigative otolaryngology · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveA remote telemedical otology referral and advice service was introduced to interested general practices. General practitioners (GPs) were given a new device, "endoscope-i" that combines an optimized smartphone high definition video app with an otoendoscope. They were specifically trained to examine and capture images of patients' eardrums, which were sent electronically with a summary of clinical information and an in-app hearing testing (if required), for specialist advice to two ear, nose, and throat (ENT) consultants. We describe the findings from an evaluation of the first 6 months of this service to establish the feasibility and acceptability of an otology telemedical referral and advice service.
methodsThe new service was advertised to GP practices in Northern Staffordshire. All interested GPs were provided with training and equipment to deliver the remote referral service. Data were collected from GPs at baseline, informal feedback in response to referral outcomes and end of service feedback. Referral data were collected routinely during the service delivery.
resultsFifteen GP leads from 15 practices received training and equipment. One quickly lost the equipment. Of the remaining 14 practices, eight sent a total of 53 remote referrals using this technology over 6 months. The most common reason for referral was an uncertainty of what could be seen in or around the eardrum. The primary barrier for implementation was lack of wireless internet connections within practices. GPs reported that they used this technology to share examination findings with patients.
conclusionsGPs were positive about the technology, from initial engagement with training and after advice were given. Some GPs expanded the role of the technology to a consultation aid. Referral volume was manageable. Commissioners should consider tariffs structures for such services; empirical cost-effectiveness and workload-impact evaluation would inform this.
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.