ArticleHNO2024
[Increased report completeness and satisfaction with structured neurotological reporting in the interdisciplinary assessment of vertigo].
Article in HNO, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- The influence of structured reporting on the accuracy of head and neck sonographies.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- Structured panendoscopy reports improve report completeness and documentation time.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- 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
13 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundResults of neurotological function diagnostics in the context of interdisciplinary vertigo assessment are usually formulated as free-text reports (FTR). These are often subject to high variability, which may lead to loss of information. The aim of the present study was to evaluate the completeness of structured reports (SR) and referrer satisfaction in the neurotological assessment of vertigo. MATERIALS AND
methodsNeurotological function diagnostics performed as referrals (n = 88) were evaluated retrospectively. On the basis of the available raw data, SRs corresponding to FTRs from clinical routine were created by means of a specific SR template for neurotological function diagnostics. FTRs and SRs were evaluated for completeness and referring physician satisfaction (n = 8) using a visual analog scale (VAS) questionnaire.
resultsCompared to FTRs, SRs showed significantly increased overall completeness (73.7% vs. 51.7%, p < 0.001), especially in terms of patient history (92.5% vs. 66.7%, p < 0.001), description of previous findings (87.5% vs. 38%, p < 0.001), and neurotological (33.5% vs. 26.7%, p < 0.001) and audiometric function diagnostics (58% vs. 32.3%, p < 0.001). In addition, SR showed significantly increased referring physician satisfaction (VAS 8.8 vs. 4.9, p < 0.001).
conclusionNeurotological SRs enable a significantly increased report completeness with higher referrer satisfaction in the context of interdisciplinary assessment of vertigo. Furthermore, SRs are particularly suitable for scientific data analysis, especially in the context of big data analyses.
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.