ReviewJournal of otology2025
Alternative Modalities for Temporal Bone Training in Otolaryngology: A Systematic Review.
Review in Journal of otology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Adaptive rehabilitation training for vestibular semicircular canal injury based on virtual reality technology.Journal of otology · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: Critically appraise the current state of alternate temporal bone training techniques (virtual reality (VR) simulation, 3D-printed models, and mental practice (MP)) compared to traditional and cadaver methods. Databases Reviewed: PubMed, Cochrane, Web of Science. Methods: Search terms utilized "temporal bone training", "temporal bone surgical modalities", and "training modalities temporal bone surgery" with "3D", "rapid prototyp*", "stereolithography", "additive manufact*", "plaster", "VR", "virtual reality", "animal model", "animal temporal bone", and "synthetic" with "AND" for all literature. Exclusion criteria: non-ENT, non-English, and did not compare against alternative/traditional methods. Results: 10 studies were included with 322 participants (83.9% ENT residents and 16.1% medical students). Costs include the FDM printer ($300), materials ($5/3D model), and <$5,000 for freeware simulator hardware. The Welling scale was used in 50% of studies. Alternate methods produced comparable or improved assessment scores to traditional and cadaver methods. Injuries were reported in three VR studies, with two reported significantly lower injury scores in the intervention groups. Time to completion was not significantly different in four VR studies, except for one finding that the time to visualize the incus was significantly lower in the intervention group. Performance after MP was not statistically different. Conclusion: More data are needed to assess whether the alternate methods are comparable to cadaveric dissection in temporal bone training. 3D models and VR simulation demonstrate promising potential for novel trainees to acquire the basic skills and produce performance comparable to or significantly better than traditional methods of lectures, textbooks, CT images, and operative videos.
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.