Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33655167›Full record

ArticleSpartan medical research journal2020

Consultation Intervention Rates for the Otolaryngology Service: A Large Metropolitan Hospital Experience.

Matt Mors, Colin Bohr, Michael Fozo, Carl Shermetaro

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Spartan medical research journal, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Matt MorsMcLaren Oakland Regional Medical Center.
Colin BohrMcLaren Oakland Regional Medical Center.
Michael FozoSt. John Hospital and Medical Center.
Carl ShermetaroMcLaren Oakland Regional Medical Center.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

contextThe purpose of this study was to evaluate the types of consultations received by an otolaryngology service at a 772-bed large metropolitan, MI-based hospital.

methodsThe authors performed a retrospective review of the specific types of consultations received during calendar year 2016.

resultsA total of 518 consultations were reviewed and analyzed by the first and second authors (MM, CB). Consultations with low intervention rates included dysphagia (difficulty swallowing) (32.3%), dysphonia (difficulty speaking) (16%), otalgia (earache) (20.8%), hearing loss (13.3%), rule out vocal cord dysfunction (0%), and vertigo/dizziness (0%). Epistaxis (nosebleed) was the most frequent reason for consultations, and angioedema (lip or airway swelling) was the most common airway-related consultation. Notably, emergent or urgent surgery was only performed on 4.6% of sample patients. Several common consultation reasons (e.g., longer-term hearing loss evaluation and cerumen ("earwax") removal) could have been deferred for clinic-based evaluation where audiograms and microscopes are more readily available.

conclusionsThese findings suggest areas for continuing education for primary care provider and resident education to place more appropriate hospital consultations. Annual resident lectures to prepare junior residents for the most common call scenarios (i.e., control epistaxis and incision and drainage of peritonsillar abscesses) could be helpful in this area. In addition, didactic lectures for primary care physicians on how to evaluate patients with dysphagia may be of value as this was a common consult for otolaryngologist referrals.

Indexed as

consultationindicationsotolaryngologic patient assessmentsotolaryngology referralsquality improvement

Identifiers

PMID33655167
PMCPMC7746046

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.