ArticleWorld journal of pediatric surgery2022
Perceptions of telemedicine at a pediatric otolaryngology-head and neck surgery program.
Article in World journal of pediatric surgery, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Economic, Environmental, and Social Value of Virtual Care in Otolaryngology: Sustainability in Quality Improvement Framework.Otolaryngology--head and neck surgery : official journal of American Academy of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery · 2025Article
- Satisfaction analysis of 5G remote ultrasound robot for diagnostics based on a structural equation model.Frontiers in robotics and AI · 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
5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: With few studies investigating the effectiveness of telemedicine (TM) in pediatric otolaryngology (ear, nose, and throat; ENT), its role in clinical practice is unclear. The objective of this study was to investigate provider perspectives regarding utility of TM in pediatric ENT practice. Methods: A survey gauging the relative merits of TM visits for common pediatric ENT chief complaints and postoperative visits was distributed to all pediatric ENT providers at a tertiary care, free-standing children's hospital. Respondents were asked to assess the effectiveness of TM visits compared with in-person visits for completing the following tasks: history collection, physical examination, medical decision-making, and patient counseling. Results: Providers rated TM visits as less useful than in-person visits for completing the most predefined tasks but did identify advantages in history taking via TM for the majority of complaints. Compared with providers with ≥10 years of experience, those with <10 years of experience found TM to be more effective than the in-person appointment for making clinical decisions for patients presenting with recurrent/chronic pharyngitis, neck masses, and stridor/noisy breathing. Opinions regarding the utility of TM for postoperative visits were mixed, with adenoidectomy, tonsillectomy and superficial procedures being most frequently deemed appropriate for TM. Conclusions: The introduction of TM to pediatric ENT faces limitations in detailed examination of areas not accessible without specialized instrumentation. Due to its strength in history taking, results suggest an asynchronous, 'store and forward' encounter followed by an in-person physical examination to confirm the diagnosis and treatment plan could be beneficial.
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.