ReviewLaryngoscope investigative otolaryngology2026
Current Technical Skills Assessment Tools in Otolaryngology Residency: A Scoping Review.
Review in Laryngoscope investigative otolaryngology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
Objective: To review and synthesize the literature on technical skills assessment tools in otolaryngology residency programs. Data Sources: A comprehensive search of Medline, Embase, PubMed, and Google Scholar was performed from inception to January 2025. Review Methods: Following PRISMA guidelines, studies reporting on technical skills assessment tools in otolaryngology residency training were screened and abstracted independently in duplicate. Data were extracted on study characteristics, subspecialty, procedure type, training modality (simulation, cadaveric, operating room), assessment tool design, scoring scale, number of residents, and tool validity. Study quality was assessed using the Modified Educational Oxford Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine framework. Results: Of 1270 screened studies, 146 met inclusion criteria, encompassing 3231 trainees across six otolaryngology subspecialties. Most studies were from the United States (59.6%), Canada (18.5%), and Denmark (10.3%). The largest subspecialty represented was otology and neurotology (42.5%), followed by rhinology and skull base surgery (21.2%), head and neck surgery (12.3%), general otolaryngology (11.6%), pediatric otolaryngology (7.5%), and laryngology (4.8%). Common assessment frameworks included Objective Structured Assessment of Technical Skills, Task-Specific Checklists, and Global Rating Scales. Tools demonstrated construct, face, and content validity, with strong interrater reliability and sensitivity to training level. Innovations included automated performance analysis and 3D-printed models. Conclusion: The synthesized list of procedures and their assessment tools can serve as a road map for otolaryngology residency programs. They support competency-based medical education, differentiate skill levels, and guide feedback. Future work should focus on multicenter validation, standardization across programs, and integration of technology-driven assessment methods to enhance surgical training outcomes.
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.