ArticleOtology & neurotology open2024
Reliability of Publicly Available Digital Endoscopes in Otolaryngology: A Pilot Study.
Article in Otology & neurotology open, 2024. 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: To compare the utility, accuracy, and confidence of an inexpensive, commercially available endoscope (not specifically designed for medical use) with traditional methods in the diagnosis of otologic conditions. Study Design: This is a prospective study. Methods: Following institutional review board approval, patients were recruited from a tertiary university-based otology/neurotology clinic. Complete history and physical were obtained by the resident, including both traditional handheld otoscopy and image captured from a commercially available digital endoscopic device (AnyKit Digital Otoscope with 4.5-inch screen). The patient was then presented to the attending without the endoscopic images and a putative diagnosis was made. The endoscopic images were then shown and the putative diagnosis was affirmed or rejected. The attending then examined the patient and determined the final diagnosis using the microscope. Data collected included resident year, resident and attending diagnosis before and after digital-otoscopic images, confidence in diagnosis (1-5 scale), and agreement between the initial putative diagnosis and the final diagnosis. Noninferiority testing was calculated using inter-rater agreement between digital-otoscopic and final diagnoses. Differences between resident and attending confidence were analyzed. A power analysis was performed and the sample size was calculated a priori. Results: A total of 62 participants (114 ears examinations) were enrolled. Cohen's kappa coefficient showed very high agreement between both resident and attending digital-otoscopic and final diagnosis (kappa = 0.868 and 0.882, respectively) suggesting noninferiority between the digital otoscope and the final diagnosis. There was no significant difference between attending confidence in diagnosis following resident presentation versus attending confidence in diagnosis after reviewing images (4.65 vs 4.61, Conclusion: Inexpensive and readily available digital endoscopes are not inferior to the traditional methods of resident-attending consultation and may provide some substantial benefits. Such devices have the potential to enhance both patient care and resident education when faculty are not immediately available (ie, inpatient and emergency room consults) and improve patient-initiated communications.
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.