ArticleLaryngoscope investigative otolaryngology2025
Patient Self-Recorded Digital Otoscopy in Otology Diagnostics.
Article in Laryngoscope investigative otolaryngology, 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.
- Telehealth Approaches for Pediatric Otitis Media and Clinical Outcomes: Scoping Review.Journal of medical Internet research · 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
Objectives: To study whether patient self-recorded digital otoscopy (PDO) is a reliable diagnostic tool in otologic remote consultations. Methods: Based on real-life referrals, 45 otologic outpatients were recruited. The patients were shown an instructional video on the use of a digital otoscope. After the tutorial, they recorded a short video of their ears. For comparison, digital otoscopy (DO) was performed by an ENT resident, and the patient was examined in person by an otologist. The recordings were evaluated by otologists, general otolaryngologists and ENT residents. The recordings were evaluated for their quality, usefulness in remote consultations, diagnostic accuracy, and observers' confidence in setting the diagnosis. Results: The average PDO quality was 5.2 ± 2.5 (mean ± SEM; scale of 1-10). The ENT resident recorded DO (RDO) quality was 6.6 ± 2.3 (mean ± SEM; scale of 1-10). The diagnosis was correct in 48.4% of the PDO cases and in 63.5% of the RDO cases. The diagnostic accuracy varied significantly across different pathologies. Conclusions: The overall quality of PDOs is satisfactory, although inferior to that of RDOs. The diagnostic accuracy of PDOs was comparable to that of RDOs for certain pathologies, highlighting that self-recorded DO may be used for remote consultations with limitations. Digital otoscopes could be used by general practitioners and nurses to facilitate otologic remote consultations. 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.