Table 3 Included study outcomes
From: Smartphone adapters for flexible Nasolaryngoscopy: a systematic review
Study name | Year | Primary Outcomes of Interest | Secondary Outcomes | Outcome Measures | Findings |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Liu H et al | 2016 | Diagnostic accuracy | NA | Controlled blinded comparison of scope adapters and endoscope tower recorded videos | No significant difference between scope adapter and endoscopy tower videos (mean difference = 1.54%, p = 0.69). |
Video recording quality | 5-point Likert scale across 7quality variables | No significant difference across 7 categories (p = 0.11–0.92) | |||
Liu YF et al | 2016 | Resident Education | NA | Resident and attending self-ratings of educational value of scope adapter examinations (non-validated 5-point scale) | Residents felt that reviewing examinations recorded with scope adapters enhanced learning in 79% of cases, and that ability to discuss recorded exams with attendings enhanced learning in 88% of cases. Attendings felt discussing recordings enhanced learning in 81% of cases. |
Lozada et al | 2017 | Diagnostic accuracy | NA | Event rates of discordant diagnoses between staff/ resident based on smartphone adapter recordings; χ2 to compare frequency of discordant diagnoses across diagnostic categories | 11% frequency of discordant exams; No statistically significant difference in number of discordant diagnoses among diagnostic categories |
Video recording quailty | Event rate of repeated examinations | 1.3% of exams needed to be repeated due to poor recording quailty |