ArticleLaryngoscope investigative otolaryngology2024
Digital otoscopy in remote consultations.
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.
- Patient Self-Recorded Digital Otoscopy in Otology Diagnostics.Laryngoscope investigative otolaryngology · 2025Article
- Digital otoscopy in remote consultations.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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Otoscopes and otomicroscopes are the most commonly used instruments for visualizing the ear. Digital otoscopy (DO) could be used to improve diagnostics in primary health care by utilizing image enlargement. The aim of the study was to explore the possibilities of DO in remote consultations. Materials and Methods: Based on real-life referrals, 45 otologic outpatients were recruited. DO was performed followed by an attending otologist's appointment, serving as the gold standard. Twenty-four patient cases were analyzed on a digital platform as remote consultation cases containing the given referral information supplemented with DO videos (DOVs). A total of 71 evaluations were performed by five otologists. The quality of the DOVs, their suitability for remote consultations, the accuracy of diagnoses and the usefulness of remote consultations were determined. Results: The average DOV quality was judged to be 7.4 ± 0.3 (mean ± standard error of the mean; scale of 1-10). The diagnosis was correct in 79% of the cases. In 59% of the patients, the otologists considered that remote consultation could have replaced an in-person visit. Conclusions: In our simulated remote consultation setup, DOV quality was sufficient for diagnostic purposes, DO improved diagnostics and treatment planning in most cases and could be used to reduce the need for in-person visits. DO-aided remote consultation may improve diagnostics and access to care.Level of evidence: 3.
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.