Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38362188›Full record

ArticleLaryngoscope investigative otolaryngology2024

Single-use versus reusable rhinolaryngoscopes for inpatient otorhinolaryngology consults: Resident and patient experience.

Andrew Jay Bowen, Robert James Macielak, Wanda Fussell, Sarah Yeakel, Ryan McMillan, Andrew Goates, Andrew Awadallah, Dale C Ekbom

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Laryngoscope investigative otolaryngology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
0.6field-weighted citation impact, top 33% 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

2 citing papers in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Comparison of ENLYTSurgical innovation · 2025
    Article
  2. Article
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

8 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Andrew Jay BowenDivision of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, Department of Surgery, School of Medicine and Public Health University of Wisconsin-Madison Madison United States.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6542-7932
Robert James MacielakDepartment of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery Mayo Clinic Rochester Minnesota USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0393-594X
Wanda FussellDepartment of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery Mayo Clinic Rochester Minnesota USA.
Sarah YeakelDepartment of Orthopedic Surgery Mayo Clinic Rochester Minnesota USA.
Ryan McMillanDepartment of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery Mayo Clinic Rochester Minnesota USA.
Andrew GoatesDepartment of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery Mayo Clinic Rochester Minnesota USA.
Andrew AwadallahDepartment of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery Mayo Clinic Rochester Minnesota USA.
Dale C EkbomDepartment of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery Mayo Clinic Rochester Minnesota USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8770-8463
Mayo Clinic · USUniversity of Wisconsin–Madison · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Objectives: Single-use rhinolaryngoscopes were brought to market in 2019 as an alternative to traditional reusable scopes and have garnered interest across settings given portability and potential cost advantages. While single-use was previously evaluated compared to traditional devices, the overall impact to the consult experience for both users and patients has not been captured. Methods: Eighteen residents performed consults with both single-use and reusable rhinolaryngoscope systems on alternating weeks. A five-question cumulative survey administered across three assessment points over a 12-week period using a five-point rating system to rate favorability. Residents and patients also completed four-point scale surveys following procedure(s) to capture the consult experience. Statistical analyses were performed to measure significance differences between survey responses between the two systems. Results: Single-use rhinolaryngoscopes received higher overall ratings compared with reusables across each metric captured including overall consult time (4.3 vs. 2.2, Conclusion: Resident and patient experience feedback favored single-use rhinolaryngoscopes compared to reusable scope technology across multiple surveyed measurables. Single-use rhinolaryngoscopes provide a viable tool for otorhinolaryngologist and other clinicians to perform rhinolaryngoscopy consults. Level of Evidence: 4.

Indexed as

endoscopynasopharyngoscopyrhinolaryngoscopysingle‐use

Identifiers

PMID38362188
PMCPMC10866581
OpenAlexW4389949379

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.