ArticleBrazilian journal of otorhinolaryngology
Smartphone-enabled otoscopy: method evaluation in clinical practice.
Article in Brazilian journal of otorhinolaryngology. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Development and validation of a smartphone-based deep-learning-enabled system to detect middle-ear conditions in otoscopic images.NPJ digital medicine · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo assess the diagnostic agreement between smartphone-enabled otoscopy and rigid otoendoscopy in tympanic membrane and middle ear diseases.
methodsA cross-sectional study was carried out to analyze otoscopies in patients seen at a general otorhinolaryngology (ORL) outpatient clinic, from June to December 2019. Eighty-three images of patients obtained from otoscopies performed through a smartphone device and a rigid endoscope were included, recorded, and stored for further analysis. The images were first analyzed by an experienced otologist, who assigned his diagnostic impression (defined as the gold standard) on each of the images. After this analysis, the images were displayed to a group of secondary raters (an experienced otorhinolaryngologist, a second-year resident in ORL, and a general practitioner). A questionnaire was applied related to each image.
resultsThere was high agreement between the smartphone device and the otoendoscopy images for all professionals, with a Kappa coefficient of 0.97 (p < 0.001). The smartphone device showed a diagnostic sensitivity of 81.1% and a specificity of 71.1%. As for the otoendoscopy, it showed a sensitivity of 84.7% and a specificity of 72.4%. The image classification as "2 = Good" was the most frequent one, with 34.9% for otoendoscopy and 31.6% for the smartphone device.
conclusionThere was a high diagnostic agreement between smartphone device-guided otoscopy and the rigid otoendoscopy, demonstrating the feasibility of using this device in clinical practice. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 3:
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.