Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34363503›Full record

Trial reportEuropean archives of oto-rhino-laryngology : official journal of the European Federation of Oto-Rhino-Laryngological Societies (EUFOS) : affiliated with the German Society for Oto-Rhino-Laryngology - Head and Neck Surgery2022

Remote assessments for bone conduction hearing devices during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Kimberley Lau, Larissa Greenwood, Vicki Proctor, Mark Yardley, Jaydip Ray

Open access · bronzeAbstract readClinical Trial
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Trial report in European archives of oto-rhino-laryngology : official journal of the European Federation of Oto-Rhino-Laryngological Societies (EUFOS) : affiliated with the German Society for Oto-Rhino-Laryngology - Head and Neck Surgery, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
0.6field-weighted citation impact, top 29% of its field
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 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 5 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Review
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

5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Kimberley LauNeuro-otology Department, Sheffield Teaching Hospitals, Sheffield, UK. kimberleylau@doctors.org.uk.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-5578-5306
Larissa GreenwoodHearing Services Department, Sheffield Teaching Hospitals, Sheffield, UK.
Vicki ProctorHearing Services Department, Sheffield Teaching Hospitals, Sheffield, UK.
Mark YardleyNeuro-otology Department, Sheffield Teaching Hospitals, Sheffield, UK.
Jaydip RayNeuro-otology Department, Sheffield Teaching Hospitals, Sheffield, UK.
Sheffield Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeThe COVID-19 pandemic had resulted in the suspension of many routine audiology services due to the risk of cross-infections in closed spaces. This has driven the need for exploring alternatives to conventional face-to-face consultations in the hospital outpatient setting. The aim of this study was to determine the efficacy of remote consultations and assessments for patients on the waiting list for consideration of bone conduction hearing devices (BCHDs), and whether this type of consultation could continue beyond the COVID-19 era.

methodsThis was a prospective cross-sectional study in a tertiary Neuro-otology Department. All new patients on the waiting list for assessment for BCHD as of 1 March 2020 were included. Patients' case notes were reviewed. All underwent a telephone consultation with an implant audiologist. If the patient wanted to go ahead with the remote trial, a BCHD sound processor on a headband would be mailed out and the patient would then have to use the device for two weeks and return the device after with their diary.

resultsThere were 49 patients. The mean age was 55 (range 27-88, SD 16.3). Four did not proceed with the trial. All patients returned their devices to the department. Majority of patients (95.6%, n = 43), completed their diary. 75.6% wanted to proceed with surgery. All patients proceeding with surgery were happy with the remote assessment and would recommend this for the future.

conclusionIt is possible to satisfactorily assess appropriately screened patients for BCHDs remotely with a structured approach and explanation of process and expectations. It might be possible to consider this type of consultation as an option for assessing potential candidates for BCHDs beyond the COVID-19 era to reduce the number of hospital visits for patients.

Indexed as

COVID-19Hearing AidsReferral and ConsultationRemote ConsultationBone ConductionCross-Sectional StudiesHumansMiddle AgedPandemicsProspective StudiesTelephoneBone conduction implantHearingHearing lossPatient-centred careTelemedicine

Identifiers

PMID34363503
PMCPMC8346775
OpenAlexW3192278203

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.