Mobile applications in otolaryngology for patients: An update

Casale, Manuele; Costantino, Andrea; Rinaldi, Vittorio; Forte, Antonio J.; Grimaldi, Marta; Sabatino, Lorenzo; Oliveto, Giuseppe; Aloise, Fabio; Pontari, Domenico; Salvinelli, Fabrizio

doi:10.1002/lio2.201

Cited by 27 publications

(24 citation statements)

References 18 publications

(19 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Some regulations exist in the form of the United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA) guidelines, 43-45 but they can be circumvented if the developer categorizes the app as a “lifestyle” app instead of a “medical” one. 43,46 The absence of effective filtering tools in the stores, combined with the lack of literature regarding the topic, has prompted other authors 2 to suggest the establishment of an editorial “App Board” in charge of app quality validation. Additionally, it is interesting to note that many of the most popular apps are free.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…An analysis of the apps currently available and their actual reliability in a clinical setting is thus needed. The only published review 2 of mobile apps in ORL for patients focused primarily on apps present in stores but lacked a systematic search relevant literature. Others focused only on some ORL subspecialties (ie, sleep analysis, hearing assessment.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Mobile Applications in Otolaryngology: A Systematic Review of the Literature, Apple App Store and the Google Play Store

Trecca

Lonigro

Gelardi

et al. 2020

Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objectives: Although the last few years have seen an increased number of smartphone applications (apps) disseminated in the field of Otolaryngology (ORL), these apps vary widely in quality. The aim of this paper, therefore, is to systematically review ORL apps directed towards patients in mobile app stores and the current literature. Methods: The Google Play Store, Apple App Store and PubMed were searched for ORL apps for patients using various keywords pertaining to different ORL subspecialties. Apps not relevant to the scope of this research and/or duplicates, educational apps, apps promoting a business, apps requiring specific separate hardware, and apps in non-English were excluded. In PubMed, keywords pertaining to the subspecialties were combined with “mobile app” in a search query; literature reviews, editorials, case reports, conference papers, duplicate articles, and articles irrelevant to ORL apps were excluded. The quality of apps with the highest number of reviews was assessed using the “Mobile App Rating Scale” (MARS), while the quality of the articles was rated using “The Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology” (STROBE) Statement. Results: After searching the app stores, 1074 apps were included and grouped according to their ORL subspecialties. The overall MARS score of the ten most popular apps in each category was 3.65 out of 5. A total of 636 articles were identified in the literature, and 193 were included. The mean adherence percentage of the articles to the STROBE checklist was of 84.37%. Conclusions: Although the apps currently available need further development, their application in ORL appears promising. Further dialogue between physicians and patients, as well as formal support from professional and scientific associations, should be encouraged.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Mobile Applications in Otolaryngology: A Systematic Review of the Literature, Apple App Store and the Google Play Store

Trecca

Lonigro

Gelardi

et al. 2020

Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…To assess its ease and practicality over current practices with otoscopes. 4. To confirm or deny the ability of the device to produce an image of sufficient quality to make a clinical assessment.…”

Section: Test Objectivesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The World Health Organization has noted a discrepancy between burden of disease and current resources for many specialties including otology, encouraging advances in technology and telemedicine to help bridge this gap around the world [3]. Recently, with the continual rise of availability of smartphones, mobile apps and attachments have become a way to achieve this, with some apps showing promise for streamlining referrals to ear, nose, and throat (ENT) specialists [4,5]. For example, Biagio showed substantial agreement in otological diagnoses between face-to-face assessments with an otoscope and remote viewing of videos of the findings, termed video-otoscopy [6].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Usability and Practicality of a Novel Mobile Attachment for Aural Endoscopy (endoscope-i): Formative Usability Study

Rowena¹

2020

JMIR Biomed Eng

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background Our aims were to determine the usability and practicality of the endoscope-i system, a novel mobile attachment for aural endoscopy. This incorporated assessing the ease of use of the endoscope-i for different professionals, and ultimately improving the system by receiving constructive feedback. Objective Our objectives were to assess the ease of the endoscope-i system in conducting an aural examination and to assess its feasibility for integrating its use into clinical practice. We looked to assess its ease, effectiveness, and efficiency; to compare this to current practices with otoscopes; and to determine whether participants perceived the system to be able to produce an image of sufficient quality to make a clinical assessment. Finally, we wanted to assess the usefulness of the current training given for using the system, and we sought to gain feedback for the product from the differing specialists. Methods A formative usability study of the endoscope-i system was conducted with 5 health care professionals. Each session lasted 40 minutes and involved audio/video consent, a hands-on session, a private semistructured interview, and an option to discuss the device with a company representative. Results All participants found the endoscope-i system easy to use. The image quality was perceived to be greater than that achieved by current otoscopes. The ability to record images and view them retrospectively was also seen as a positive. Conclusions This study has not identified any significant issues relating to the design, functionality, or application of the endoscope-i. Participants perceived the system as superior to current options with a directly positive impact on their clinical practice.

show abstract

“…The utility of telemedicine had been especially relevant in remote areas, but the COVID-19 pandemic has made it highly popular in urban areas as well. The universal use of smartphones made several validated applications in the field of otolaryngology available to clinicians and patients [9]. For example, the vibrating application of smartphones was validated for use as a 512 Hz tuning fork for the Weber test…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Validation of a smartphone-based Rinne test to detect an air-bone gap

Hibscher

Oron

Handzel

et al. 2021

Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective To validate a smartphone-based Rinne test employing the vibration application of mobile telephones. Study design Prospective controlled clinical study. Setting Tertiary referral medical center.Methods Twenty consecutive patients hospitalized in the otolaryngology department of a tertiary medical center due to unilateral hearing loss (HL study group), and 30 consecutive inpatients on the same ward who had no otological history (controls) were enrolled. Each participant underwent the traditional 512 Hz tuning fork-based Rinne test, as well as a smartphone-based Rinne test by means of a single uncovered smartphone with a vibration application. The test results were compared to those of formal audiometry. Results The overall agreement between the traditional Rinne test and the smartphone-based test was 98%. The Sensitivity was 85% for both tests, specificity was 90% and 93% for smartphone and tuning fork tests, respectively. The smartphonebased Rinne test could correctly discriminate between patients with an air-bone gap ≥ 25 dB at 512 Hz from patients with a lower or no air-bone gap at 512 Hz. The smartphone-based Rinne could not evaluate two patients with a moderately severe/ severe sensorineural hearing loss due to their inability to detect the vibrations. ConclusionA smartphone-based Rinne test was validated for the detection of an air-bone gap ≥ 25 dB at 512 Hz in the clinical setting. The validity of patient-operated smartphone-based Rinne test awaits further study. Level of evidence 2B.

show abstract

Mobile applications in otolaryngology for patients: An update

Cited by 27 publications

References 18 publications

Mobile Applications in Otolaryngology: A Systematic Review of the Literature, Apple App Store and the Google Play Store

Mobile Applications in Otolaryngology: A Systematic Review of the Literature, Apple App Store and the Google Play Store

Usability and Practicality of a Novel Mobile Attachment for Aural Endoscopy (endoscope-i): Formative Usability Study

Validation of a smartphone-based Rinne test to detect an air-bone gap

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About