ArticleHNO2022
[Teaching otorhinolaryngology in times of COVID-19: to what extent can digital formats replace face-to-face teaching?]
Article in HNO, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Comparison of face-to-face teaching and online teaching in neurosurgery education for medical students.BMC medical education · 2025Article
- Article
- Article
- [High interaction potential of online-only courses with breakout sessions-results of a pilot study].HNO · 2024Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveDue to the coronavirus disease 19 (COVID-19) pandemic, postgraduate training in otorhinolaryngology in 2020 was transferred completely from face-to-face to digital teaching. This paper assesses whether this change was possible without a reduction in the quality of teaching and learning.
methodsResults of final written examinations were compared for the years 2016-2020, and the results of the teaching evaluation by the students for 2017-2020. The evaluation by students in 2020 included additional questions related to the switch from face-to-face to digital teaching. Additionally, the lecturers and teachers were asked for their assessments.
resultsResults of the final written examination did not show any significant differences between 2016-2019 and 2020. Students were highly satisfied with the digital format, but values did not reach the level of former years with face-to-face-teaching. Especially the interaction with patients and the teaching of manual skills were rated lower in the digital format. Lecturers emphasized the additional workload for preparation of digital teaching.
conclusionThe results of written examinations showed no difference between digital and face-to-face teaching. Online communication and interaction were reduced and regarded as cumbersome by students and faculty. Digital solutions providing more interaction and active participation are required. The digital format is more appropriate for teaching basic knowledge than for teaching practical skills.
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.