ArticleThe Laryngoscope2023
Female Surgical Ergonomics in Otolaryngology: A Qualitative Study.
Article in The Laryngoscope, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 15 citations in OpenAlex.
- Surgical Ergonomics for Women in Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery.Otolaryngologic clinics of North America · 2025Review
- The Experiences of Women in Otolaryngology: A Scoping Review.The Laryngoscope · 2025Article
- Female Surgical Ergonomics in Otolaryngology.Operative techniques in otolaryngology--head and neck surgery · 2025Article
- Female Surgical Ergonomics in Otolaryngology: A National Survey Study.Otolaryngology--head and neck surgery : official journal of American Academy of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery · 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
4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveTo explore the surgical ergonomic challenges experienced by women in otolaryngology, identify specific equipment that is ergonomically challenging, and assess the impact of suboptimal ergonomics on female otolaryngologists.
methodsWe performed a qualitative study using an interpretive framework rooted in grounded theory. We performed semi-structured qualitative interviews of 14 female otolaryngologists from nine institutions at various stages in training and across subspecialties. Interviews were independently analyzed by thematic content analysis by two researchers and inter-rater reliability was assessed via Cohen's kappa. Differing opinions were reconciled via discussion.
resultsParticipants noted difficulties with equipment including microscopes, chairs, step stools, and tables as well as difficulty using larger surgical instruments, preference for smaller instruments, frustration with lack of smaller instruments, and a desire for a larger spectrum of instrument sizes. Participants reported neck, hand, and back pain associated with operating. Participants suggested modifications to the operative environment, including a wider variety of instrument sizes, adjustable instruments, and more focus and attention on ergonomic issues and the range of surgeon physiques. Participants felt that optimizing their operating room set-up was an additional burden on them, and that lack of inclusive instrumentation affected their sense of belonging. Participants emphasized positive stories of mentorship and empowerment from peers and superiors of all genders.
conclusionFemale otolaryngologists face unique ergonomic challenges. As the otolaryngology workforce becomes increasingly diverse, it is important to address the needs of a diverse set of physiques to avoid inadvertently disadvantaging certain individuals. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: N/A Laryngoscope, 133:3034-3041, 2023.
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.