ArticleLaryngoscope investigative otolaryngology2024
Left-handedness in otolaryngology, who is right?
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.
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.
- Effects of hand preference on learning episiotomy skills: a study conducted with midwifery students.BMC nursing · 2026Article
- Left-handedness in otolaryngology, who is right?Laryngoscope investigative otolaryngology · 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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objectives: This study aimed to ascertain the prevalence of left-handedness (LH) among otolaryngology-head and neck surgery (ORLHN) practitioners, investigate dexterity's impact on LH trainees, and identify common patterns in their training to improve the training experience. Methods: A web-based survey was distributed anonymously via email to members of the Saudi Otorhinolaryngology Society. The survey targeted ORLHN attending consultants, board-certified registrars, and current residents. It consisted of three sections: the first focused on the experience of attending consultants in training LH individuals, the second investigated common maneuvers employed by rhinologists, and the third explored the experiences and impacts reported by LH trainees. Results: The study included 174 participants, and found a 13.2% LH prevalence among them. Rhinologists showed disparities, with 50% advising trainees to stand on the left side of the bed and use their left hand for the scope, whereas the other half asked otherwise. Additionally, 94.4% of the participants had not encountered any courses specifically tailored for LH trainees. Among LH trainees, 57% and 41% reported difficulties in learning and performing side-specific procedures such as functional endoscopic sinus surgery and endoscopic septoplasty, respectively, often attempting to switch to their nondominant hand, and feeling disadvantaged due to their laterality. Conclusions: Left-handedness presents challenges for both LH trainees and their trainers in surgical specialties, particularly in ORLHN, in which specific positioning and instruments are crucial to gain access to the desired surgical field. Despite these challenges, there is insufficient support for LH individuals. We recommend encouraging LH trainees to openly disclose and discuss their left-handedness, provide them with mentors, establish standardized operating room setups and techniques, supply appropriate instruments, and demonstrate flexibility in accommodating their needs. Level of evidence: Level 5.
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.