Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36109380›Full record

ArticleEuropean 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 Surgery2023

A retrospective cohort study of telephone versus face-to-face clinics for the management of new otology referrals.

Christopher Metcalfe, Peter Gaskell, Thomas McLelland, Sanjay Patel, Jameel Muzaffar, Lucy Dalton, Chris Coulson

Open access · bronzeAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article 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, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
0.6field-weighted citation impact, top 31% 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

1 citing paper in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. 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

7 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Christopher MetcalfeDepartment of Otolaryngology, Queen Elizabeth Hospital Birmingham, Edgbaston, Birmingham, B15 2TH, UK. christophermetcalfe@nhs.net.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-8790-2722
Peter GaskellDepartment of Otolaryngology, Queen Elizabeth Hospital Birmingham, Edgbaston, Birmingham, B15 2TH, UK.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-3187-5569
Thomas McLellandDepartment of Otolaryngology, Queen Elizabeth Hospital Birmingham, Edgbaston, Birmingham, B15 2TH, UK.
Sanjay PatelDepartment of Otolaryngology, Queen Elizabeth Hospital Birmingham, Edgbaston, Birmingham, B15 2TH, UK.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-5158-5895
Jameel MuzaffarDepartment of Otolaryngology, Queen Elizabeth Hospital Birmingham, Edgbaston, Birmingham, B15 2TH, UK.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-3065-0269
Lucy DaltonDepartment of Otolaryngology, Queen Elizabeth Hospital Birmingham, Edgbaston, Birmingham, B15 2TH, UK.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-7695-5653
Chris CoulsonDepartment of Otolaryngology, Queen Elizabeth Hospital Birmingham, Edgbaston, Birmingham, B15 2TH, UK.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-3991-5473
Queen Elizabeth Hospital Birmingham · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeTo compare outcomes of telephone and face-to-face consultations for new otology referrals and discuss the wider use of telemedicine in otology.

methodsRetrospective cohort study including new adult otology referrals to our unit, sampled consecutively between March 2021 and May 2021, seen in either a face-to-face or telephone clinic. Primary outcome measure was the proportion of patients with a definitive management outcome (discharged or added to waiting list for treatment) versus the proportion of patients requiring follow-up for further assessment or review.

results150 new patients referred for a routine otology consultation (75 telephone, 75 face-to-face) were included. 53/75 patients (71%) undergoing a face-to-face consultation received a definitive outcome following initial review, versus 22/75 (29%) telephone patients (χ

conclusionsTelephone clinics in otology have played an important role as part of the COVID19 response. However, they are currently limited by a lack of clinical examination and audiometry. Remote assessment pathways in otology that incorporate asynchronous review of recorded examinations alongside audiometry, either conventional or boothless, may mitigate this problem; however, further research is required.

Indexed as

COVID-19OtolaryngologyAdultHumansReferral and ConsultationRetrospective StudiesTelephoneOtologyRemote assessmentService designTelemedicineTelephone consultations

Identifiers

PMID36109380
PMCPMC9483526
OpenAlexW4296032992

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.