ArticleLaryngoscope investigative otolaryngology2021
Comparative evaluation of a low-cost solar powered otoscope with a traditional device among health care workers in Malawi.
Article in Laryngoscope investigative otolaryngology, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Embedding routine hearing health checks within existing Meals on Wheels services - A protocol for the SOUND-BITES Program pilot study.PloS one · 2026Article
- Evaluation of Arclight Frugal Smartphone Video Otoscopy.The Laryngoscope · 2025Article
- Comparative evaluation of a low-cost solar powered otoscope with a traditional device among health care workers in Malawi.Laryngoscope investigative otolaryngology · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 4 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesTo comparatively evaluate a low-cost otoscope with a traditional device among health care workers in Malawi.
methodsThe study is a prospective, comparative, qualitative observational survey of health care worker's opinions using 5-point Likert rating scales and tick box categories in a 10-item survey questionnaire. Twenty-five mixed cadre health care workers from the Ear, Nose, and Throat Department of the Queen Elizabeth Hospital, Blantyre in Malawi were recruited. Outcomes measures used were ease of speculum attachment, handling, insertion, stability, the quality of view, color, build, brightness, overall ease of use, and their suitability for local work.
resultsThe low-cost otoscope scored statistically higher in overall combined performance, as well as in the remaining four out of the nine attributes. Notably, 54.2% of users rated the low-cost device more suitable than the traditional device for use in low-middle income countries, 25% were equivocal, and 20.8% preferred the traditional device.
conclusionThis study found the Arclight otoscope to be an appropriate and practical substitute for more expensive traditional otoscopes for the delivery of ENT services in low resource settings. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: N/A.
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.