Abstract
Objective
Telemedicine and telementoring have had a significant boost across all medical and surgical specialties over the last decade and especially during the COVID-19 pandemic. The aim of this scoping review is to synthesize the current use of telemedicine and telementoring in otorhinolaryngology and head and neck surgery.
Data Sources
PubMed and Cochrane Library.
Review Methods
A scoping review search was conducted, which identified 469 articles. Following full-text screening by 2 researchers, 173 articles were eligible for inclusion and further categorized via relevant subdomains.
Conclusions
Virtual encounters and telementoring are the 2 main applications of telemedicine in otolaryngology. These applications can be classified into 7 subdomains. Different ear, nose, and throat subspecialties utilized certain telemedicine applications more than others; for example, almost all articles on patient engagement tools are rhinology based. Overall, telemedicine is feasible, showing similar concordance when compared with traditional methods; it is also cost-effective, with high patient and provider satisfaction.
Implications for Practice
Telemedicine in otorhinolaryngology has been widely employed during the COVID-19 pandemic and has a huge potential, especially with regard to its distributing quality care to rural areas. However, it is important to note that with current exponential use, it is equally crucial to ensure security and privacy and integrate HIPAA-compliant systems (Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act) in the big data era. It is expected that many more applications developed during the pandemic are here to stay and will be refined in years to come.
Keywords: telemedicine, telehealth, rhinology, otolaryngology, otology, audiology, laryngology
Telemedicine is not a novel concept and has long been utilized across medical specialties, since the development of information and communication technologies (ICT), which are defined as “digital technologies that facilitate the electronic capture, processing, storage, and exchange of information.” 1 The World Health Organization has adopted the following broad description of telemedicine, having recognized that there is not a single definitive definition: “the delivery of health care services, where distance is a critical factor, by all health care professionals using information and communication technologies for the exchange of valid information for diagnosis, treatment and prevention of disease and injuries, research and evaluation, and for the continuing education of health care providers, all in the interests of advancing the health of individuals and their communities.” 2 Modern telemedicine approaches often encompass algorithms to aid in diagnosis and treatment. These approaches have paved the way toward the application of artificial intelligence and other exciting developments.
Importantly, telemedicine has had a boost during the COVID-19 pandemic, and otolaryngology is considered one of the highest-risk health care specialties with regard to exposure of staff and contraction and spread of SARS-CoV-2. Many endoscopic examinations and surgical procedures in otolaryngology are considered aerosol generating, 3 with an increased risk of viral transmission. Expansion of technology-centered remote delivery of care, where feasible and safe, has never been more needed than now. Hence, telemedicine has been in the spotlight during the COVID-19 pandemic, as utilizing the various forms of ICT has become an important way of providing health care from a distance, especially for high-risk patient groups seeking to minimize unnecessary exposures.
Regardless of the current trend that has accelerated the adoption of telemedicine, its development in the specialty of otorhinolaryngology–head and neck surgery has been slow: it was first described in 1994, 4 with the number of publications increasing steadily over the years.
With this in mind, we aim to provide an up-to-date evaluation of the various applications of telemedicine in otorhinolaryngology–head and neck surgery. However, due to the broad nature of the question and the fact that the quality of published data is limited and heterogenous, a systematic review could not be performed; hence, a scoping review was conducted.
Materials and Methods
For methodology, we followed the PRISMA-ScR checklist 5 (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses Extension for Scoping Reviews).
Information Sources and Search Strategy
Articles were searched in the PubMed database with the following thread of keywords:
(telemed* [tw] OR telehealth [tw] OR “tele-medicine”[tw] OR “tele-health” [tw] OR “e-consult” [tw] OR “e-consultation” [tw] OR econsult* [tw] OR telediagnos* [tw] OR “tele-diagnostics” [tw] OR telemedicine [mesh] OR “video consult” [tw] OR “video consultation” [tw] OR “Video consultations” [tw] OR “Video visit” [tw] OR “video visits” [tw] OR “tele mentoring” [tw] OR telementor* [tw] OR ((mentor* [ti] OR mentoring [mesh]) AND (telemed* [ti] OR “telemedicine” [mesh]))) AND (“Otolaryngology” [Mesh] OR “Otorhinolaryngologic Surgical Procedures” [Mesh] OR “Otorhinolaryngologic Diseases”[Mesh] OR “Otologic Surgical Procedures”[Mesh] OR “Nasal Surgical Procedures”[Mesh] OR “Audiology”[Mesh] OR ent [ti] OR otolaryngolo* [ti] OR sinus* [ti] OR rhinolog* [ti]) AND English [lang] NOT (“animals” [mesh] NOT “humans” [mesh]).
Articles were also searched in the Cochrane Library databases with the following thread of keywords: telemedicine AND ENT; telemedicine AND otolaryngology; telehealth AND ENT; telehealth AND otolaryngology. The date of the last search was December 15, 2020.
Eligibility Criteria
Eligibility criteria were peer-reviewed studies that described the application of telemedicine in the otolaryngology specialty. Due to the scarcity of available literature, no restrictions were set on patient demographics and study design; thus, case reports were also included. Research articles that did not describe the application of telemedicine in the field of otolaryngology were excluded. Reviews, editorials, commentaries, and all other nonresearch trial articles on telemedicine in otolaryngology were excluded.
Selection of Sources of Evidence
Search results from databases were downloaded and uploaded to Covidence, an online organizer platform where duplicates were removed. Using the eligibility criteria, 2 reviewers (A.Y. and D.K.) independently screened the titles and abstracts of all included articles. For full-text screening, the 2 reviewers independently screened the articles, and conflicts were resolved by discussion. The final full-text screened cohort was confirmed with a third reviewer (M.L.).
Data Extraction
Eligible full-text articles were read independently by the 2 reviewers to extract information regarding year published, study design, subspecialty, type of telemedicine, disease of focus diagnosis/prognosis, participant number/sample size, and outcomes. Level of evidence was determined by study design (1, randomized controlled study; 2, prospective cohort study, controlled study; 3, retrospective controlled study; 4, case report, case series).
Results
The search yielded 469 results, and after removal of duplicates, 461 were eligible for initial screening. All titles and abstracts were screened. An overall 408 articles were eligible for full-text screening. A total of 235 articles were excluded as they did not fit the inclusion criteria: article type was not original research; article did not focus on application of telemedicine in otolaryngology; or there was no full text available or no access. Full-text review was performed on the remaining 173 articles, and data were extracted ( Figure 1 ).
Figure 1.
Search strategy flowchart.
Of all studies that fit the inclusion criteria, 18 focused on rhinology or skull base surgery, 33 on laryngology/head and neck surgery, 35 on comprehensive otolaryngology–head and neck surgery, 85 on otology or audiology subspecialty, 1 on maxillofacial surgery, and 1 on multiple subspecialties. In general, there has been a significant increase in the annual number of articles published on telemedicine in otolaryngology overall and for subspecialties ( Figure 2 ).
Figure 2.
Trend in number of publications. OHNS, otolaryngology–head and neck surgery.
For ease of review, we classified the articles per the approach used for telemedicine.
Virtual Encounters
A total of 164 articles were identified. Virtual encounters (VEs) were defined as consultations held by telephone- or video-based platforms (with real-time audio and/or visual communication with minimal latency) and store-and-forward telepractice services. These commonly included clinical assessments with the patients presenting to an ear, nose, and throat (ENT) specialist while connected from a remote site, and they encompass tele-screening, tele-rehabilitation, and postoperative follow-up via patient engagement tools. Applications of VE were classified into 5 subdomains: patient-physician interaction (Supplemental Table 1a and 1b, available online), physician-physician interaction (Supplemental Tables S2a and S2b), patient engagement tools (Supplemental Tables S3a and S3b), tele-screening (Supplemental Tables S4a and S4b), and tele-rehabilitation (Supplemental Table S5a and S5b). Most studies focused on feasibility6-75 or investigated concordance rates4,76-151 between ≥2 cohorts, while a few examined the cost savings.152-154
Physician-Patient Interaction
Prior to COVID-19, studies and case reports demonstrated the feasibility of remote tele-visits15,16,23,70 and sufficiency in providing patients with preliminary diagnoses, reducing referral wait time, allowing for postoperative tele-follow-up visits, or preventing unnecessary in-person otolaryngology visits.7,8,11,13,68,155
A major theme identified was antibiotic prescription patterns in the course of tele-management. For treatment of sinusitis, feasibility of VE was supported in literature,14,83-85 but results on prescription patterns were contradicting. Some studies reported that physicians were more likely to prescribe antibiotics during tele-visits as compared with face-to-face (FTF) visits, 83 while others noted the opposite.84,85 One study found no significant difference among methods of visit in adherence to antibiotic prescription guidelines. 150 For management of acute respiratory tract infections, a group of researchers noted that patient satisfaction was highest in those who had an antibiotic and corticosteroid prescribed during the tele-visit. 67
A few studies focused on remote cochlear implant (CI) management, and feasibility was supported,18-20,97 as patients with CIs or hearing aids can use tele-visits to undergo pure tone audiometry (PTA), tympanometry, and speech tests. Remote programming of CI is also possible, and when compared with CI programmed in-person, there was no significant difference in patients’ performance at 3 months according a group of researchers. 151 Patient satisfaction for the telemedicine experience was high.21-23,73,151 However, as expected, performance of audiology or speech tests was suggested to be better in a sound-treated booth.28,96 For PTA conducted in a non–sound-treated booth, results were promising,110,111 and others reported the test and retest thresholds between remote and in-person testing to be similar.112,113 With regard to concordance rates, results were contradicting. Threshold differences of PTA conducted in remote sound booths were clinically acceptable and equivalent to in-person testing,102-108 although 1 study found more errors generated when the personal computer–based audiometer was used in a telemedicine setup as compared with in-person appointment settings. 109
Most studies showed acceptable to high agreement between diagnosis made via telemedicine and that made through FTF encounters,76-79,82,86-92,122 yet 2 noted disconcordance.80,81 Common concerns for this discrepancy were with regard to image/recording quality of the physical examination.6,8,29,156 A higher percentage of video otoscopy recording taken by nonphysicians was lower quality and unusable than that taken by physicians.17,89,121,124 In a pediatric study, this was shown to improve upon appropriate training of parents on how to use an otoscope. 26 In contrast, usefulness of endoscopic videos taken by health care personnel can be limited.25,118,148,149
Nonetheless, when VEs were utilized for CI management, studies demonstrated no significant differences in performance of CIs, session duration, neural responses, electrode-specific measure, and threshold and comfort levels18,93-101,123 as compared with those managed in person. When VE was used for dysphagia evaluations, results suggested that remote evaluation yielded substantial levels of agreement for treatment recommendations and subjective severity ratings as compared with traditional FTF evaluations,114-117 with comparable efficacy. According to cost-efficiency analysis, tele-visits are more cost-efficient than in-person appointments. 86 At an institution level, the cost reduction was achieved after the number of tele-visits surpassed the threshold to pay off the fixed costs from the initial technology installment; for example, in 1 study this was reported at a threshold of 35 patients per year.11,152,153
During COVID-19, there has been a surge in literature describing the implementation and efficacy of the tele-clinic,155-168 especially when compared with a similar period prior to the pandemic.157,162 Some studies reported no-shows to be more frequent when the tele-visit was utilized, 158 while others noted attendance to increase.160,168 Some reported reasons for no-shows included technical issues158,159 or patients declining it due to no direct physical examination. 165 While there are numerous studies investigating the efficacy of otoscopes for “at home” use, during the pandemic, only 1 case series reported the use of a commercially available otoscope by patients for telemedicine purposes. 167 Nonetheless, patient satisfaction with telehealth encounters was high or improved as compared with standard care after implementation of the tele-clinics.161,164,166 Furthermore, studies showed that patients preferred continued use of tele-visits in addition to,160,163 and in some studies even instead of, 161 FTF office appointments.
Patient Engagement Tools
Various mobile- and internet-based platforms have been developed to facilitate patient engagement. Almost all articles except for 2 were published in the field of rhinology, which included management of allergy-related symptoms,30,31,69,125,126 patient-reported outcome measures tracking after sinonasal surgery, 32 and remote nasal airflow evaluation.33,34 Studies noted that mobile patient engagement tools aided with physician-patient communication efficacy, 125 helped diagnose allergies, 30 held advantages in improving adherence rate and average daily use of prescribed medications for patients with allergies,31,69,126 allowed for remote nasal airflow evaluation,33,34 and yielded high patient response rates when tracking patient-reported outcome measures. 32 For nonrhinology articles, one group showed the feasibility of using an online consultation service to connect potential patients interested in maxillofacial surgery to physicians who answered inquiries. 27 Another study investigated the utility of a mobile instant messenger in the postoperative management of pediatric tonsillectomy and found this to improve compliance with at-home care instructions. 66
Physician-Physician Interaction
Twelve studies focused on tele-consultations, during which physicians remotely consulted another physician for better case management. Remote consultations among physicians were shown to be feasible and able to prevent unnecessary encounters for general otolaryngology outpatient clinics,35,36 as well as more specialized audiologic management of CI cases.37,38 ICT also allowed for remote observation and consultation for laryngeal intubation39,40 and extubation. 41
Results indicated that physician-physician tele-consultations had good interrater agreement for diagnostic indicators127,128 and management recommendations 129 for patients with dysphagia. Virtual consultations among physicians also accurately predicted otologic surgery as compared with those from in-person appointments. 130 Two studies evaluated diagnostic accuracy for patients whose imaging was sent via ICT. The study population consisted of emergency ENT patients and pediatric patients with lateral neck x-rays. Results for both studies showed high accuracy.4,131
Tele-screening
In tele-screening (ie, telemedicine for the purpose of screening), the 18 eligible articles mostly focused on the field of otology. Almost exclusively, technology was used for hearing screening. These were described in articles from America,42,132 Australia,43-47 Brazil, 133 Canada, 48 Germany, 71 India,74,134 Kenya, 72 South Africa,49-51,75 and Tajikistan. 52 In general, results suggest feasibility. Tele-screening resulted in increased screening coverage, shortened referral waiting time, decreased outpatient and failure-to-attend appointments at tertiary centers from a remote community, and reduced costs.43-48,50,51,71 Testing and identification during tele-screening were also suggested to be reliable and comparable to in-person screening.42,52,132-134 In a rare study that investigated tele-screening in the adult population, it was found that an online screening test was feasible, but only a small portion of participants provided their contact information to proceed with a hearing evaluation and hearing aid trial. 49
Tele-rehabilitation
In tele-rehabilitation, the 27 articles were mainly in the field of otology, audiology, laryngology, or head and neck cancer. The feasibility and effectiveness of various online-delivered or software-based therapies were investigated (eg, acceptance and commitment, auditory-verbal, cognitive-behavioral, voice, speech, and swallow) to manage tinnitus, chronic vestibular syndromes, hearing loss, deafness,53-57,135-140 speech/voice pathology, and dysphagia.58-64,141-147,154 In articles focused in otology and audiology, tele-rehabilitation groups showed improvement in tinnitus severity,53-57,136 vertigo severity, 137 and hearing aid problems, 138 with no significant difference in improvements from in-person therapy.139,140 In articles concerned with the field of laryngology, tele-rehabilitation suggested cost-effectiveness 154 and improvements in vocal fold function, acoustic and physiologic parameters, nodule sizes, patient perceptions of voice-related quality of life, 61 vocal self-evaluation skill, 58 and vocal pattern. 59 Comparable levels of agreement were achieved between online and FTF environments.60,141-143,145-147 Moreover, a higher adherence rate than that of patient-directed therapy 64 was found. Overall, patient and therapist satisfaction rates on tele-rehabilitation were also high.59,61-63,65,144
Telementoring
Nine studies evaluated the concept of telementoring (ie, mentoring by means of telecommunication or computer networks). Detailed results are illustrated in Supplemental Tables S6a and S6b (available online). Overall, results are encouraging and certainly show the feasibility of this approach. 169 When in-person surgical guidance and telementoring endoscopic sinus surgery were compared, no significant differences in clinical outcomes were observed.170,171 Yet, the authors recommend that only surgeons of a certain training level and experience be telementored intraoperatively when acting as the primary surgeon.172,173 Telementoring procedures have also been described,174,175 including intubation, laryngoscopy, otoscopy, and nasopharyngoscopy, and 1 study identified a $25,450 reduction in travel expenses after implementing a tele-clinic, 176 demonstrating the potential of significant financial savings. However, Melo et al found that only the in-person group showed a statistically significant difference in pre- and posttraining performances for the overall score and individual topic scores when compared with remotely trained community health workers for nonprocedural tasks. 177
Discussion
This scoping review of the literature provides an up-to-date summary of the current applications of telemedicine in otolaryngology and rhinology in particular, including the latest studies on the widespread use of telemedicine during the COVID-19 pandemic.155-168 We aim to discuss our results related to the various subdomains that we have identified to appreciate the extensive work that has been done in this field. Interestingly, subspecialties focused on different subdomains of telemedicine, as summarized in Figure 3 .
Figure 3.
Subdomains of telemedicine applied in each subspecialty. OHNS, otolaryngology–head and neck surgery.
VE is one of the oldest and most common applications of telemedicine in otolaryngology, and coincidentally, most articles in telemedicine focused on this and related strategies. When VE was compared with in-person appointments, results were promising,18,76-79,82,86-108,112-117,122,123,151 with only a few studies reporting discrepancies.81,109,118 Most studies demonstrated moderate (κ = 0.41-0.60) to substantial (κ = 0.61-0.80) diagnostic agreement between VE and FTF evaluations.25,82,84,87,88,91,92,114-117,121,124,148-150,160 A major issue is the quality of the physical examination being conducted remotely, which obviously has a lot of limitations.6,8,17,25,28,29,89,96,121,124,156 However, VE has been found to expand health coverage, prevent unnecessary visits, and save travel costs.7,8,11,13-15,17,19,23,38,68,70,86,152-155 With the development of adaptors for mobile-based endoscopes, mobile/internet-based patient engagement platforms, and internet-based examination and analysis software, the applications of VE will be advanced.
The use of patient engagement tools was most widespread in rhinology, possibly because the subspecialty deals with the management of many common chronic conditions. Regardless of subspecialty, studies have shown that these tools can enhance diagnostic accuracy, management, and follow-up efficacy, as well as facilitate more efficient communication and improve adherence to medications.27,30-34,66,69,125,126 Tele-rehabilitation has been applied in most subspecialities. One study investigated the feasibility of providing therapy via a mobile app, 58 pointing toward the likely future applications of many tele-rehabilitation services. With the development of interactive smart tools and artificial intelligence, tele-rehabilitation in times ahead may not even require a therapist but deal with many common tasks via programmed branching logics and permutations.
Tele-screening has been applied for screening of otologic conditions, in particular the remote screening of hearing disorders, mainly in the pediatric population.42-48,50-52,71,72,132-134 It is another subset of telemedicine that has been increasingly incorporating automated algorithms to aid with its purposes. Results show great potential for tele-screening in rural communities with regard to the demonstrated testing reliability of remote hearing tests, cost-effectiveness, increase in the local screening rate, and efficient referral workflow. While tele-screening is still limited on the global level, this concept and the related technologies have a huge potential for more widespread use.
Tele-consultation has been utilized among providers within36-40,130 and beyond35,127-129 the confines of the country. It is also useful in connecting ENT providers with those from different specialties in emergency situations or when a complex case is encountered requiring multidisciplinary care,4,41,131 underscoring its potential in the field of otorhinolaryngology.
Telementoring is another subdomain of telemedicine that we identified, and studies show that this can be an invaluable tool for the training. Surgical telementoring was mainly utilized and tested within the field of rhinology.169-173 While studies show a positive experience, many identify the balance between high-quality video/audio transmission and reduction of lag time as a key challenge, but technological advances should easily overcome this in the years to come. It is intriguing to imagine that commercially available technologies, such as augmented or virtual reality, will be implemented in the use of surgical telementoring in ENT. Other technologies, such as Google glasses, allow for visualization of the entire operating room, which provides the mentor with the important aspect of situational awareness. Furthermore, with holistic projection of augmented or virtual reality via the glasses or on the screen, this may enhance the mentoring experience. While only a few articles reported the feasibility of tele-education in the field of otolaryngology so far,174-177 this area of research shows great potential. One limitation is that surgical specialties, including ENT, require a high level of hands-on experience and FTF teaching for the initial period of surgical training. However, for training and mentoring the advanced surgical trainee, this concept represents an extremely useful adjunct in the education of the next generation of surgeons and physicians.
Taking all this into account, different subdomains of telemedicine have been assessed for different measurable outcomes. The most commonly investigated outcomes that we encountered during our analysis were feasibility, cost-efficiency, patient and/or physician satisfaction, waiting time, concordance between remote and local physicians, validity, reliability, and diagnostic accuracy of telemedicine. Interestingly, we observed a wide range of mean ages of adult patients surveyed, from 20 to 66 years,12,21,23,61-63,70,73,76,79,156,166 and some studies also examined satisfaction among older patients. Moreover, various studies on the pediatric population reported parent satisfaction.26,42,48,65,95 On the whole, the majority of patients have been pleased with their telemedicine experience, especially with the reduced traveling costs. The introduction of new telemedicine platforms and familiarization with these technologies for other purposes in daily life will facilitate the encounters and certainly improve patient satisfaction.
While this review aims to provide a detailed overview of the current applications of telemedicine in otorhinolaryngology, there are limitations. Due to the broad nature of the question and the fact that the quality of published data is limited and heterogenous, a systematic review could not be performed; hence, a more limited review (ie, scoping review) was conducted.
While it appears that telemedicine has more advantages than disadvantages, this approach must continue to be critically appraised, and more rigorous research needs to be conducted and demonstrate patient benefit at high levels of evidence to allow for its widespread adoption. While telemedicine does reduce traveling costs for patients and provide outreach care for those in rural areas, the patient must be aware of and consent to many limitations. Moreover, patients may prefer FTF appointments as they can facilitate the encounter by building a better rapport between the patient and the physician. Certain aspects of the clinical evaluation, such as endoscopies, will yield more information if performed by an experienced health care provider FTF, rather than by patients themselves. Details lost in the transmission of audio and video data is also a problem, as the physician’s perception and understanding of the patient can be limited by the technical quality of the VE. Moreover, some patients may not have access to such technology. All examinations, as far as the VE allows, should be standardized for all examination and analysis devices that can be self-administered by patients at home. The active engagement of patients in familiarizing themselves with the newly devised systems is crucial to allow providers to make accurate diagnoses.
The telemedicine market has shown exponential growth in recent years, but at the same time it is important to ensure security and privacy for the patient by the use of HIPAA-compliant systems (Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act) that are integrated in the existing patient management software. This will allow for possible recording of parts of the examination and/or photodocumentation and will facilitate billing and coding. While telemedicine allows for easy access to care, licensing requirements need to be taken into account, in particular for patients who live in other states and who have never presented FTF in the state for which the physician’s license has been granted.
Implications for Practice
COVID-19 has brought telemedicine center stage, but many studies had already demonstrated the huge potential of this concept. From VE to tele-education, telementoring, and platform development to allow for self-examination and rehabilitation at home, telemedicine is here to stay and will be further developed in years to come.
Author Contributions
Angela Yang, design, data acquisition, data analysis and interpretation, drafting, revision; Dayoung Kim, design, data acquisition, data analysis and interpretation, drafting, revision; Peter H. Hwang, conception, design, data interpretation, revision, final approval; Matt Lechner, conception, design, data interpretation, revision, final approval
Disclosures
Competing interests: None.
Sponsorships: None.
Funding source: None.
Supplemental Material
Supplemental material, sj-docx-1-opn-10.1177_2473974X211072791 for Telemedicine and Telementoring in Rhinology, Otology, and Laryngology: A Scoping Review by Angela Yang, Dayoung Kim, Peter H. Hwang and Matt Lechner in OTO Open: The Official Open Access Journal of the American Academy of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery Foundation
Acknowledgments
We thank Christopher Stave, Lane Medical Library, Stanford University, for his invaluable help and guidance during the literature search and scoping review.
Footnotes
Supplemental Material: Additional supporting information is available at http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/suppl/10.1177/2473974X211072791
References
- 1. Gagnon M-P, Desmartis M, Labrecque M, et al. Systematic review of factors influencing the adoption of information and communication technologies by healthcare professionals. J Med Syst. 2012;36(1):241-277. doi: 10.1007/s10916-010-9473-4 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 2. World Health Organization, ed. Telemedicine: Opportunities and Developments in Member States—Report on the Second Global Survey on Ehealth. World Health Organization; 2010. [Google Scholar]
- 3. Mick P, Murphy R. Aerosol-generating otolaryngology procedures and the need for enhanced PPE during the COVID-19 pandemic: a literature review. J Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2020;49(1):29. doi: 10.1186/s40463-020-00424-7 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 4. Yamamoto LG, Inaba AS, DiMauro R. Personal computer teleradiology interhospital image transmission to facilitate tertiary pediatric telephone consultation and patient transfer: soft-tissue lateral neck and elbow radiographs. Pediatr Emerg Care. 1994;10(5):273-277. doi: 10.1097/00006565-199410000-00007 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 5. Tricco AC, Lillie E, Zarin W, et al. PRISMA Extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR): checklist and explanation. Ann Intern Med. 2018;169(7):467-473. doi: 10.7326/M18-0850 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 6. Crump WJ, Driscoll B. An application of telemedicine technology for otorhinolaryngology diagnosis. Laryngoscope. 1996;106(5, pt 1):595-598. doi: 10.1097/00005537-199605000-00014 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 7. Hofstetter PJ, Kokesh J, Ferguson AS, Hood LJ. The impact of telehealth on wait time for ENT specialty care. Telemed J E Health. 2010;16(5):551-556. doi: 10.1089/tmj.2009.0142 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 8. Haegen TW, Cupp CC, Hunsaker DH. Teleotolaryngology: a retrospective review at a military tertiary treatment facility. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2004;130(5):511-518. doi: 10.1016/j.otohns.2004.01.010 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 9. Smith AC, Williams J, Agnew J, Sinclair S, Youngberry K, Wootton R. Realtime telemedicine for paediatric otolaryngology pre-admission screening. J Telemed Telecare. 2005;11(suppl 2):S86-S89. doi: 10.1258/135763305775124821 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 10. Blakeslee DB, Grist WJ, Stachura ME, Blakeslee BS. Practice of otolaryngology via telemedicine. Laryngoscope. 1998;108(1, pt 1):1-7. doi: 10.1097/00005537-199801000-00001 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 11. Dorrian C, Ferguson J, Ah-See K, et al. Head and neck cancer assessment by flexible endoscopy and telemedicine. J Telemed Telecare. 2009;15(3):118-121. doi: 10.1258/jtt.2009.003004 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 12. Rimmer RA, Christopher V, Falck A, et al. Telemedicine in otolaryngology outpatient setting—single center head and neck surgery experience. Laryngoscope. 2018;128(9):2072-2075. doi: 10.1002/lary.27123 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 13. Walijee H, Sood S, Markey A, Krishnan M, Lee A, De S. Is nurse-led telephone follow-up for post-operative obstructive sleep apnoea patients effective? A prospective observational study at a paediatric tertiary centre. Int J Pediatr Otorhinolaryngol. 2020;129:109766. doi: 10.1016/j.ijporl.2019.109766 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 14. Penza KS, Murray MA, Myers JF, Furst JW, Pecina JL. Management of acute sinusitis via e-visit. Telemed J E Health. 2021;27(5):532-536. doi: 10.1089/tmj.2020.0047 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 15. Arriaga MA, Nuss D, Scrantz K, et al. Telemedicine-assisted neurotology in post-Katrina Southeast Louisiana. Otol Neurotol. 2010;31(3):524-527. doi: 10.1097/MAO.0b013e3181cdd69d [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 16. Viirre E, Warner D, Balch D, Nelson JR. Remote medical consultation for vestibular disorders: technological solutions and case report. Telemed J. 1997;3(1):53-58. doi: 10.1089/tmj.1.1997.3.53 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 17. Ramkumar V, Rajendran A, Nagarajan R, Balasubramaniyan S, Suresh DK. Identification and management of middle ear disorders in a rural cleft care program: a telemedicine approach. Am J Audiol. 2018;27(3S):455-461. doi: 10.1044/2018_AJA-IMIA3-18-0015 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 18. Slager HK, Jensen J, Kozlowski K, et al. Remote programming of cochlear implants. Otol Neurotol. 2019;40(3):e260-e266. doi: 10.1097/MAO.0000000000002119 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 19. Shapiro WH, Huang T, Shaw T, Roland JTJ, Lalwani AK. Remote intraoperative monitoring during cochlear implant surgery is feasible and efficient. Otol Neurotol. 2008;29(4):495-498. doi: 10.1097/MAO.0b013e3181692838 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 20. Steuerwald W, Windmill I, Scott M, Evans T, Kramer K. Stories from the webcams: Cincinnati Children’s Hospital Medical Center audiology telehealth and pediatric auditory device services. Am J Audiol. 2018;27(3S):391-402. doi: 10.1044/2018_AJA-IMIA3-18-0010 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 21. Kuzovkov V, Yanov Y, Levin S, et al. Remote programming of MED-EL cochlear implants: users’ and professionals’ evaluation of the remote programming experience. Acta Otolaryngol. 2014;134(7):709-716. doi: 10.3109/00016489.2014.892212 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 22. Cullington H, Kitterick P, Weal M, Margol-Gromada M. Feasibility of personalised remote long-term follow-up of people with cochlear implants: a randomised controlled trial. BMJ Open. 2018;8(4):e019640. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2017-019640 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 23. Burns CL, Ward EC, Hill AJ, Kularatna S, Byrnes J, Kenny LM. Randomized controlled trial of a multisite speech pathology telepractice service providing swallowing and communication intervention to patients with head and neck cancer: evaluation of service outcomes. Head Neck. 2017;39(5):932-939. doi: 10.1002/hed.24706 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 24. Maurrasse SE, Schwanke TW, Tabaee A. Smartphone capture of flexible laryngoscopy: optics, subsite visualization, and patient satisfaction. Laryngoscope. 2019;129(9):2147-2152. doi: 10.1002/lary.27803 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 25. Demant MN, Jensen RG, Bhutta MF, Laier GH, Lous J, Homøe P. Smartphone otoscopy by non-specialist health workers in rural Greenland: a cross-sectional study. Int J Pediatr Otorhinolaryngol. 2019;126:109628. doi: 10.1016/j.ijporl.2019.109628 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 26. Erkkola-Anttinen N, Irjala H, Laine MK, Tähtinen PA, Löyttyniemi E, Ruohola A. Smartphone otoscopy performed by parents. Telemed J E Health. 2019;25(6):477-484. doi: 10.1089/tmj.2018.0062 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 27. Brockes C, Schenkel JS, Buehler RN, Grätz K, Schmidt-Weitmann S. Medical online consultation service regarding maxillofacial surgery. J Craniomaxillofac Surg. 2012;40(7):626-630. doi: 10.1016/j.jcms.2012.03.018 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 28. Goehring JL, Hughes ML, Baudhuin JL, et al. The effect of technology and testing environment on speech perception using telehealth with cochlear implant recipients. J Speech Lang Hear Res. 2012;55(5):1373-1386. doi: 10.1044/1092-4388(2012/11-0358) [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 29. Lundberg T, Westman G, Hellstrom S, Sandstrom H. Digital imaging and telemedicine as a tool for studying inflammatory conditions in the middle ear—evaluation of image quality and agreement between examiners. Int J Pediatr Otorhinolaryngol. 2008;72(1):73-79. doi: 10.1016/j.ijporl.2007.09.015 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 30. Bianchi A, Tsilochristou O, Gabrielli F, Tripodi S, Matricardi PM. The smartphone: a novel diagnostic tool in pollen allergy? J Investig Allergol Clin Immunol. 2016;26(3):204-207. doi: 10.18176/jiaci.0060 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 31. Costa C, Menesatti P, Brighetti MA, et al. Pilot study on the short-term prediction of symptoms in children with hay fever monitored with e-health technology. Eur Ann Allergy Clin Immunol. 2014;46(6):216-225. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 32. Khanwalkar AR, Shen J, Kern RC, et al. Utilization of a novel interactive mobile health platform to evaluate functional outcomes and pain following septoplasty and functional endoscopic sinus surgery. Int Forum Allergy Rhinol. 2019;9(4):345-351. doi: 10.1002/alr.22273 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 33. Seren E. Web-based analysis of nasal sound spectra. Telemed J E Health. 2005;11(5):578-582. doi: 10.1089/tmj.2005.11.578 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 34. Choi H, Park I-H, Yoon HG, Lee H-M. Wireless patient monitoring system for patients with nasal obstruction. Telemed J E Health. 2011;17(1):46-49. doi: 10.1089/tmj.2010.0105 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 35. Kohlert S, Murphy P, Tse D, Liddy C, Afkham A, Keely E. Improving access to otolaryngology–head and neck surgery expert advice through eConsultations. Laryngoscope. 2018;128(2):350-355. doi: 10.1002/lary.26677 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 36. Gilani S, Bommakanti K, Friedman L. Electronic consults in otolaryngology: a pilot study to evaluate the use, content, and outcomes in an academic health system. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol. 2020;129(2):170-174. doi: 10.1177/0003489419882726 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 37. McRackan TR, Noble JH, Wilkinson EP, et al. Implementation of image-guided cochlear implant programming at a distant site. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2017;156(5):933-937. doi: 10.1177/0194599817698435 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 38. Kokesh J, Ferguson AS, Patricoski C, LeMaster B. Traveling an audiologist to provide otolaryngology care using store-and-forward telemedicine. Telemed J E Health. 2009;15(8):758-763. doi: 10.1089/tmj.2009.0046 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 39. Sibert K, Ricci MA, Caputo M, et al. The feasibility of using ultrasound and video laryngoscopy in a mobile telemedicine consult. Telemed J E Health. 2008;14(3):266-272. doi: 10.1089/tmj.2007.0050 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 40. Mosier J, Joseph B, Sakles JC. Telebation: next-generation telemedicine in remote airway management using current wireless technologies. Telemed J E Health. 2013;19(2):95-98. doi: 10.1089/tmj.2012.0093 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 41. Newmark JL, Ahn YK, Adams MC, Bittner EA, Wilcox SR. Use of video laryngoscopy and camera phones to communicate progression of laryngeal edema in assessing for extubation: a case series. J Intensive Care Med. 2013;28(1):67-71. doi: 10.1177/0885066612437528 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 42. Ciccia AH, Whitford B, Krumm M, McNeal K. Improving the access of young urban children to speech, language and hearing screening via telehealth. J Telemed Telecare. 2011;17(5):240-244. doi: 10.1258/jtt.2011.100810 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 43. Smith AC, Armfield NR, Wu W-I, Brown CA, Mickan B, Perry C. Changes in paediatric hospital ENT service utilisation following the implementation of a mobile, indigenous health screening service. J Telemed Telecare. 2013;19(7):397-400. doi: 10.1177/1357633X13506526 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 44. Smith AC, Brown C, Bradford N, Caffery LJ, Perry C, Armfield NR. Monitoring ear health through a telemedicine-supported health screening service in Queensland. J Telemed Telecare. 2015;21(8):427-430. doi: 10.1177/1357633X15605407 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 45. Smith AC, Armfield NR, Wu W-I, Brown CA, Perry C. A mobile telemedicine-enabled ear screening service for Indigenous children in Queensland: activity and outcomes in the first three years. J Telemed Telecare. 2012;18(8):485-489. doi: 10.1258/jtt.2012.gth114 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 46. Reeve C, Thomas A, Mossenson A, Reeve D, Davis S. Evaluation of an ear health pathway in remote communities: improvements in ear health access. Aust J Rural Health. 2014;22(3):127-132. doi: 10.1111/ajr.12098 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 47. Elliott G, Smith AC, Bensink ME, et al. The feasibility of a community-based mobile telehealth screening service for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children in Australia. Telemed J E Health. 2010;16(9):950-956. doi: 10.1089/tmj.2010.0045 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 48. Hatton JL, Rowlandson J, Beers A, Small S. Telehealth-enabled auditory brainstem response testing for infants living in rural communities: the British Columbia Early Hearing Program experience. Int J Audiol. 2019;58(7):381-392. doi: 10.1080/14992027.2019.1584681 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 49. Ratanjee-Vanmali H, Swanepoel DW, Laplante-Lévesque A. Characteristics, behaviours and readiness of persons seeking hearing healthcare online. Int J Audiol. 2019;58(2):107-115. doi: 10.1080/14992027.2018.1516895 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 50. Yousuf Hussein S, Swanepoel DW, Mahomed F, Biagio de Jager L. Community-based hearing screening for young children using an mHealth service-delivery model. Glob Health Action. 2018;11(1):1467077. doi: 10.1080/16549716.2018.1467077 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 51. Govender SM, Mars M. Assessing the efficacy of asynchronous telehealth-based hearing screening and diagnostic services using automated audiometry in a rural South African school. S Afr J Commun Disord. 2018;65(1):e1-e9. doi: 10.4102/sajcd.v65i1.582 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 52. Skarzyński PH, Świerniak W, Piłka A, et al. A hearing screening program for children in primary schools in Tajikistan: a telemedicine model. Med Sci Monit. 2016;22:2424-2430. doi: 10.12659/msm.895967 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 53. Beukes EW, Baguley DM, Allen PM, Manchaiah V, Andersson G. Audiologist-guided internet-based cognitive behavior therapy for adults with tinnitus in the United Kingdom: a randomized controlled trial. Ear Hear. 2018;39(3):423-433. doi: 10.1097/AUD.0000000000000505 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 54. Beukes EW, Allen PM, Manchaiah V, Baguley DM, Andersson G. Internet-based intervention for tinnitus: outcome of a single-group open trial. J Am Acad Audiol. 2017;28(4):340-351. doi: 10.3766/jaaa.16055 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 55. Weise C, Kleinstäuber M, Andersson G. Internet-delivered cognitive-behavior therapy for tinnitus: a randomized controlled trial. Psychosom Med. 2016;78(4):501-510. doi: 10.1097/PSY.0000000000000310 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 56. Hesser H, Gustafsson T, Lundén C, et al. A randomized controlled trial of Internet-delivered cognitive behavior therapy and acceptance and commitment therapy in the treatment of tinnitus. J Consult Clin Psychol. 2012;80(4):649-661. doi: 10.1037/a0027021 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 57. Henry JA, Zaugg TL, Myers PJ, et al. Pilot study to develop telehealth tinnitus management for persons with and without traumatic brain injury. J Rehabil Res Dev. 2012;49(7):1025-1042. doi: 10.1682/jrrd.2010.07.0125 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 58. van Leer E, Porcaro N. Feasibility of the fake phone call: an iOS app for covert, public practice of voice technique for generalization training. J Voice. 2019;33(5):659-668. doi: 10.1016/j.jvoice.2018.02.014 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 59. Dias AE, Limongi JCP, Barbosa ER, Hsing WT. Voice telerehabilitation in Parkinson’s disease. Codas. 2016;28(2):176-181. doi: 10.1590/2317-1782/20162015161 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 60. Howell S, Tripoliti E, Pring T. Delivering the Lee Silverman Voice Treatment (LSVT) by web camera: a feasibility study. Int J Lang Commun Disord. 2009;44(3):287-300. doi: 10.1080/13682820802033968 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 61. Fu S, Theodoros DG, Ward EC. Delivery of intensive voice therapy for vocal fold nodules via telepractice: a pilot feasibility and efficacy study. J Voice. 2015;29(6):696-706. doi: 10.1016/j.jvoice.2014.12.003 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 62. Wall LR, Ward EC, Cartmill B, Hill AJ, Porceddu SV. Examining user perceptions of SwallowIT: a pilot study of a new telepractice application for delivering intensive swallowing therapy to head and neck cancer patients. J Telemed Telecare. 2017;23(1):53-59. doi: 10.1177/1357633X15617887 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 63. Sharma S, Ward EC, Burns C, Theodoros D, Russell T. Assessing dysphagia via telerehabilitation: patient perceptions and satisfaction. Int J Speech Lang Pathol. 2013;15(2):176-183. doi: 10.3109/17549507.2012.689333 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 64. Wall LR, Ward EC, Cartmill B, Hill AJ, Porceddu SV. Adherence to a prophylactic swallowing therapy program during (chemo) radiotherapy: impact of service-delivery model and patient factors. Dysphagia. 2017;32(2):279-292. doi: 10.1007/s00455-016-9757-z [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 65. Constantinescu G. Satisfaction with telemedicine for teaching listening and spoken language to children with hearing loss. J Telemed Telecare. 2012;18(5):267-272. doi: 10.1258/jtt.2012.111208 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 66. Yu KE, Kim JS. Effects of a posttonsillectomy management program using a mobile instant messenger on parents’ knowledge and anxiety, and their children’s compliance, bleeding, and pain. J Spec Pediatr Nurs. 2019;24(4):e12270. doi: 10.1111/jspn.12270 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 67. Dvorin EL, Rothberg MB, Rood MN, Martinez KA. Corticosteroid use for acute respiratory tract infections in direct-to-consumer telemedicine. Am J Med. 2020;133(8):e399-e405. doi: 10.1016/j.amjmed.2020.02.014 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 68. Shaffer AD, Dohar JE. Evidence-based telehealth clinical pathway for pediatric tympanostomy tube otorrhea. Int J Pediatr Otorhinolaryngol. 2020;134:110027. doi: 10.1016/j.ijporl.2020.110027 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 69. Fraia MD, Tripodi S, Arasi S, et al. Adherence to prescribed e-diary recording by patients with seasonal allergic rhinitis: observational study. J Med Internet Res. 2020;22(3):e16642. doi: 10.2196/16642 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 70. Pedersen S, Holand U. Tele-endoscopic otorhinolaryngological examination: preliminary study of patient satisfaction. Telemed J. 1995;1(1):47-52. doi: 10.1089/tmj.1.1995.1.47 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 71. Delb W, Merkel D, Pilorget K, Schmitt J, Plinkert PK. Effectiveness of a TEOAE-based screening program: can a patient-tracking system effectively be organized using modern information technology and central data management? Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol. 2004;261(4):191-196. doi: 10.1007/s00405-003-0662-3 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 72. Yancey KL, Cheromei LJ, Muhando J, Reppart J, Netterville JL, Jayawardena ADL. Pediatric hearing screening in low-resource settings: incorporation of video-otoscopy and an electronic medical record. Int J Pediatr Otorhinolaryngol. 2019;126:109633. doi: 10.1016/j.ijporl.2019.109633 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 73. Cullington HE, Agyemang-Prempeh A. Person-centred cochlear implant care: assessing the need for clinic intervention in adults with cochlear implants using a dual approach of an online speech recognition test and a questionnaire. Cochlear Implants Int. 2017;18(2):76-88. doi: 10.1080/14670100.2017.1279728 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 74. Gupta N, Chawla N, Gupta D, Dhawan N, Janaki VR. Community triage of otology patients using a store-and-forward telemedicine device: a feasibility study. Ear Nose Throat J. 2017;96(7):246-249. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 75. van Wyk T, Mahomed-Asmail F, Swanepoel DW. Supporting hearing health in vulnerable populations through community care workers using mHealth technologies. Int J Audiol. 2019;58(11):790-797. doi: 10.1080/14992027.2019.1649478 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 76. Seim NB, Philips RHW, Matrka LA, et al. Developing a synchronous otolaryngology telemedicine clinic: prospective study to assess fidelity and diagnostic concordance. Laryngoscope. 2018;128(5):1068-1074. doi: 10.1002/lary.26929 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 77. Heneghan C, Sclafani AP, Stern J, Ginsburg J. Telemedicine applications in otolaryngology. IEEE Eng Med Biol Mag. 1999;18(4):53-62. doi: 10.1109/51.775489 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 78. Sclafani AP, Heneghan C, Ginsburg J, Sabini P, Stern J, Dolitsky JN. Teleconsultation in otolaryngology: live versus store and forward consultations. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 1999;120(1):62-72. doi: 10.1016/S0194-5998(99)70371-2 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 79. Yulzari R, Bretler S, Avraham Y, Sharabi-Nov A, Even-Tov E, Gilbey P. Mobile technology-based real-time teleotolaryngology care facilitated by a nonotolaryngologist physician in an adult population. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol. 2018;127(1):46-50. doi: 10.1177/0003489417745089 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 80. Ullah R, Gilliland D, Adams D. Otolaryngology consultations by real-time telemedicine. Ulster Med J. 2002;71(1):26-29. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 81. Melcer T, Hunsaker D, Crann B, Caola L, Deniston W. A prospective evaluation of ENT telemedicine in remote military populations seeking specialty care. Telemed J E Health. 2002;8(3):301-311. doi: 10.1089/15305620260353199 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 82. Smith AC, Dowthwaite S, Agnew J, Wootton R. Concordance between real-time telemedicine assessments and face-to-face consultations in paediatric otolaryngology. Med J Aust. 2008;188(8):457-460. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 83. Mehrotra A, Paone S, Martich GD, Albert SM, Shevchik GJ. A comparison of care at e-visits and physician office visits for sinusitis and urinary tract infection. JAMA Intern Med. 2013;173(1):72-74. doi: 10.1001/2013.jamainternmed.305 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 84. Johnson KM, Dumkow LE, Burns KW, Yee MA, Egwuatu NE. Comparison of diagnosis and prescribing practices between virtual visits and office visits for adults diagnosed with sinusitis within a primary care network. Open Forum Infect Dis. 2019;6(9):ofz393. doi: 10.1093/ofid/ofz393 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 85. Davis CB, Marzec LN, Blea Z, et al. Antibiotic prescribing patterns for sinusitis within a direct-to-consumer virtual urgent care. Telemed J E Health. 2019;25(6):519-522. doi: 10.1089/tmj.2018.0100 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 86. Jacups SP, Newman D, Dean D, Richards A, McConnon KM. An innovative approach to improve ear, nose and throat surgical access for remote living Cape York Indigenous children. Int J Pediatr Otorhinolaryngol. 2017;100:225-231. doi: 10.1016/j.ijporl.2017.07.011 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 87. Lundberg T, Biagio L, Laurent C, Sandström H, Swanepoel DW. Remote evaluation of video-otoscopy recordings in an unselected pediatric population with an otitis media scale. Int J Pediatr Otorhinolaryngol. 2014;78(9):1489-1495. doi: 10.1016/j.ijporl.2014.06.018 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 88. Kokesh J, Ferguson AS, Patricoski C, et al. Digital images for postsurgical follow-up of tympanostomy tubes in remote Alaska. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2008;139(1):87-93. doi: 10.1016/j.otohns.2008.04.008 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 89. Patricoski C, Kokesh J, Ferguson AS, et al. A comparison of in-person examination and video otoscope imaging for tympanostomy tube follow-up. Telemed J E Health. 2003;9(4):331-344. doi: 10.1089/153056203772744653 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 90. Biagio L, Swanepoel DW, Laurent C, Lundberg T. Video-otoscopy recordings for diagnosis of childhood ear disease using telehealth at primary health care level. J Telemed Telecare. 2014;20(6):300-306. doi: 10.1177/1357633X14541038 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 91. Eikelboom RH, Mbao MN, Coates HL, Atlas MD, Gallop MA. Validation of tele-otology to diagnose ear disease in children. Int J Pediatr Otorhinolaryngol. 2005;69(6):739-744. doi: 10.1016/j.ijporl.2004.12.008 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 92. Lundberg T, Biagio de, Jager L, Swanepoel DW, Laurent C. Diagnostic accuracy of a general practitioner with video-otoscopy collected by a health care facilitator compared to traditional otoscopy. Int J Pediatr Otorhinolaryngol. 2017;99:49-53. doi: 10.1016/j.ijporl.2017.04.045 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 93. Hughes ML, Sevier JD, Choi S. Techniques for remotely programming children with cochlear implants using pediatric audiological methods via telepractice. Am J Audiol. 2018;27(3S):385-390. doi: 10.1044/2018_AJA-IMIA3-18-0002 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 94. Wesarg T, Wasowski A, Skarzynski H, et al. Remote fitting in Nucleus cochlear implant recipients. Acta Otolaryngol. 2010;130(12):1379-1388. doi: 10.3109/00016489.2010.492480 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 95. Hughes ML, Goehring JL, Sevier JD, Choi S. Measuring sound-processor thresholds for pediatric cochlear implant recipients using visual reinforcement audiometry via telepractice. J Speech Lang Hear Res. 2018;61(8):2115-2125. doi: 10.1044/2018_JSLHR-H-17-0458 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 96. Hughes ML, Goehring JL, Baudhuin JL, et al. Use of telehealth for research and clinical measures in cochlear implant recipients: a validation study. J Speech Lang Hear Res. 2012;55(4):1112-1127. doi: 10.1044/1092-4388(2011/11-0237) [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 97. Lohmann AR, Carlson ML, Sladen DP. Intraoperative cochlear implant device testing utilizing an automated remote system: a prospective pilot study. Otol Neurotol. 2018;39(3):313-317. doi: 10.1097/MAO.0000000000001719 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 98. Campos PD, Ferrari DV. Teleaudiology: evaluation of teleconsultation efficacy for hearing aid fitting. J Soc Bras Fonoaudiol. 2012;24(4):301-308. doi: 10.1590/s2179-64912012000400003 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 99. Goehring JL, Hughes ML. Measuring sound-processor threshold levels for pediatric cochlear implant recipients using conditioned play audiometry via telepractice. J Speech Lang Hear Res. 2017;60(3):732-740. doi: 10.1044/2016_JSLHR-H-16-0184 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 100. Sevier JD, Choi S, Hughes ML. Use of direct-connect for remote speech-perception testing in cochlear implants. Ear Hear. 2019;40(5):1162-1173. doi: 10.1097/AUD.0000000000000693 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 101. Fletcher KT, Dicken FW, Adkins MM, et al. Audiology telemedicine evaluations: potential expanded applications. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2019;161(1):63-66. doi: 10.1177/0194599819835541 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 102. Crowell ES, Givens GD, Jones GL, Brechtelsbauer PB, Yao J. Audiology telepractice in a clinical environment: a communication perspective. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol. 2011;120(7):441-447. doi: 10.1177/000348941112000704 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 103. Yao J, Givens GD, Wan Y. A Web services-based distributed system with browser-client architecture to promote tele-audiology assessment. Telemed J E Health. 2009;15(8):777-782. doi: 10.1089/tmj.2009.0031 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 104. Givens GD, Elangovan S. Internet application to tele-audiology—“nothin’ but net.” Am J Audiol. 2003;12(2):59-65. doi: 10.1044/1059-0889(2003/011) [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 105. Yao J, Wan Y, Givens GD. Using web services to realize remote hearing assessment. J Clin Monit Comput. 2010;24(1):41-50. doi: 10.1007/s10877-009-9208-6 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 106. Givens GD, Blanarovich A, Murphy T, Simmons S, Blach D, Elangovan S. Internet-based tele-audiometry system for the assessment of hearing: a pilot study. Telemed J E Health. 2003;9(4):375-378. doi: 10.1089/153056203772744707 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 107. Yao JJ, Yao D, Givens G. A browser-server-based tele-audiology system that supports multiple hearing test modalities. Telemed J E Health. 2015;21(9):697-704. doi: 10.1089/tmj.2014.0171 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 108. Swanepoel DW, Koekemoer D, Clark J. Intercontinental hearing assessment—a study in tele-audiology. J Telemed Telecare. 2010;16(5):248-252. doi: 10.1258/jtt.2010.090906 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 109. Choi JM, Lee HB, Park CS, Oh SH, Park KS. PC-based tele-audiometry. Telemed J E Health. 2007;13(5):501-508. doi: 10.1089/tmj.2007.0085 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 110. Jacobs PG, Silaski G, Wilmington D, et al. Development and evaluation of a portable audiometer for high-frequency screening of hearing loss from ototoxicity in homes/clinics. IEEE Trans Biomed Eng. 2012;59(11):3097-3103. doi: 10.1109/TBME.2012.2204881 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 111. Whitton JP, Hancock KE, Shannon JM, Polley DB. Validation of a self-administered audiometry application: an equivalence study. Laryngoscope. 2016;126(10):2382-2388. doi: 10.1002/lary.25988 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 112. Margolis RH, Bratt G, Feeney MP, Killion MC, Saly GL. Home hearing test: within-subjects threshold variability. Ear Hear. 2018;39(5):906-909. doi: 10.1097/AUD.0000000000000551 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 113. Masalski M, Kręcicki T. Self-test web-based pure-tone audiometry: validity evaluation and measurement error analysis. J Med Internet Res. 2013;15(4):e71. doi: 10.2196/jmir.2222 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 114. Malandraki GA, McCullough G, He X, McWeeny E, Perlman AL. Teledynamic evaluation of oropharyngeal swallowing. J Speech Lang Hear Res. 2011;54(6):1497-1505. doi: 10.1044/1092-4388(2011/10-0284) [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 115. Morrell K, Hyers M, Stuchiner T, et al. Telehealth stroke dysphagia evaluation is safe and effective. Cerebrovasc Dis. 2017;44(3-4):225-231. doi: 10.1159/000478107 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 116. Kantarcigil C, Sheppard JJ, Gordon AM, Friel KM, Malandraki GA. A telehealth approach to conducting clinical swallowing evaluations in children with cerebral palsy. Res Dev Disabil. 2016;55:207-217. doi: 10.1016/j.ridd.2016.04.008 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 117. Burns CL, Ward EC, Hill AJ, Phillips N, Porter L. Conducting real-time videofluoroscopic swallow study via telepractice: a preliminary feasibility and reliability study. Dysphagia. 2016;31(3):473-483. doi: 10.1007/s00455-016-9701-2 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 118. Akhtar M, Van Heukelom PG, Ahmed A, et al. Telemedicine physical examination utilizing a consumer device demonstrates poor concordance with in-person physical examination in emergency department patients with sore throat: a prospective blinded study. Telemed J E Health. 2018;24(10):790-796. doi: 10.1089/tmj.2017.0240 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 119. Lozada KN, Morton K, Stepan K, Capo J, Chai RL. The clinical impact of bedside fiberoptic laryngoscopic recording on a tertiary consult service. Laryngoscope. 2018;128(4):818-822. doi: 10.1002/lary.26821 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 120. Wu C-J, Wu S-Y, Chen P-C, Lin Y-S. An innovative smartphone-based otorhinoendoscope and its application in mobile health and teleotolaryngology. J Med Internet Res. 2014;16(3):e71. doi: 10.2196/jmir.2959 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 121. Shah MU, Sohal M, Valdez TA, Grindle CR. iPhone otoscopes: currently available, but reliable for tele-otoscopy in the hands of parents? Int J Pediatr Otorhinolaryngol. 2018;106:59-63. doi: 10.1016/j.ijporl.2018.01.003 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 122. Shah MU, Lotterman S, Roberts D, Eisen M. Smartphone telemedical emergency department consults for screening of nonacute dizziness. Laryngoscope. 2019;129(2):466-469. doi: 10.1002/lary.27424 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 123. Rodríguez C, Ramos A, Falcon JC, Martínez-Beneyto P, Gault A, Boyle P. Use of telemedicine in the remote programming of cochlear implants. Cochlear Implants Int. 2010;11(suppl 1):461-464. doi: 10.1179/146701010X12671177204624 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 124. Biagio L, Swanepoel DW, Adeyemo A, Hall JW, 3rd, Vinck B. Asynchronous video-otoscopy with a telehealth facilitator. Telemed J E Health. 2013;19(4):252-258. doi: 10.1089/tmj.2012.0161 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 125. Cingi C, Yorgancioglu A, Cingi CC, et al. The “physician on call patient engagement trial” (POPET): measuring the impact of a mobile patient engagement application on health outcomes and quality of life in allergic rhinitis and asthma patients. Int Forum Allergy Rhinol. 2015;5(6):487-497. doi: 10.1002/alr.21468 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 126. Pizzulli A, Perna S, Florack J, et al. The impact of telemonitoring on adherence to nasal corticosteroid treatment in children with seasonal allergic rhinoconjunctivitis. Clin Exp Allergy. 2014;44(10):1246-1254. doi: 10.1111/cea.12386 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 127. Malandraki GA, Markaki V, Georgopoulos VC, Bauer JL, Kalogeropoulos I, Nanas S. An international pilot study of asynchronous teleconsultation for oropharyngeal dysphagia. J Telemed Telecare. 2013;19(2):75-79. doi: 10.1177/1357633x12474963 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 128. Furukawa M, Furukawa MK, Mizojiri G, Matsuda H. Telemedicine in laryngology. Telemed J. 1998;4(4):329-333. doi: 10.1089/tmj.1.1998.4.329 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 129. Mayadevi M, Thankappan K, Limbachiya SV, et al. Interdisciplinary telemedicine in the management of dysphagia in head and neck. Dysphagia. 2018;33(4):474-480. doi: 10.1007/s00455-018-9876-9 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 130. Kokesh J, Ferguson AS, Patricoski C. Preoperative planning for ear surgery using store-and-forward telemedicine. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2010;143(2):253-257. doi: 10.1016/j.otohns.2010.04.265 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 131. Eze N, Lo S, Bray D, Toma AG. The use of camera mobile phone to assess emergency ENT radiological investigations. Clin Otolaryngol. 2005;30(3):230-233. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2273.2005.00982.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 132. Lancaster P, Krumm M, Ribera J, Klich R. Remote hearing screenings via telehealth in a rural elementary school. Am J Audiol. 2008;17(2):114-122. doi: 10.1044/1059-0889(2008/07-0008) [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 133. Botasso M, Sanches SGG, Bento RF, Samelli AG. Teleaudiometry as a screening method in school children. Clinics (Sao Paulo). 2015;70(4):283-288. doi: 10.6061/clinics/2015(04)11 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 134. Ramkumar V, Hall JW, Nagarajan R, Shankarnarayan VC, Kumaravelu S. Tele-ABR using a satellite connection in a mobile van for newborn hearing testing. J Telemed Telecare. 2013;19(5):233-237. doi: 10.1177/1357633X13494691 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 135. Kleinstäuber M, Weise C, Andersson G, Probst T. Personality traits predict and moderate the outcome of Internet-based cognitive behavioural therapy for chronic tinnitus. Int J Audiol. 2018;57(7):538-544. doi: 10.1080/14992027.2018.1432902 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 136. Henry JA, Thielman EJ, Zaugg TL, et al. Telephone-based progressive tinnitus management for persons with and without traumatic brain injury: a randomized controlled trial. Ear Hear. 2019;40(2):227-242. doi: 10.1097/AUD.0000000000000609 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 137. van Vugt VA, van der Wouden JC, Essery R, et al. Internet based vestibular rehabilitation with and without physiotherapy support for adults aged 50 and older with a chronic vestibular syndrome in general practice: three armed randomised controlled trial. BMJ. 2019;367:l5922. doi: 10.1136/bmj.l5922 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 138. Thorén ES, Öberg M, Andersson G, Lunner T. Internet interventions for hearing loss. Am J Audiol. 2015;24(3):316-319. doi: 10.1044/2015_AJA-15-0009 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 139. Havenga E, Swanepoel DW, le Roux T, Schmid B. Tele-intervention for children with hearing loss: a comparative pilot study. J Telemed Telecare. 2017;23(1):116-125. doi: 10.1177/1357633X15617886 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 140. Constantinescu G, Waite M, Dornan D, et al. A pilot study of telepractice delivery for teaching listening and spoken language to children with hearing loss. J Telemed Telecare. 2014;20(3):135-140. doi: 10.1177/1357633X14528443 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 141. Rangarathnam B, McCullough GH, Pickett H, Zraick RI, Tulunay-Ugur O, McCullough KC. Telepractice versus in-person delivery of voice therapy for primary muscle tension dysphonia. Am J Speech Lang Pathol. 2015;24(3):386-399. doi: 10.1044/2015_AJSLP-14-0017 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 142. Mashima PA, Birkmire-Peters DP, Syms MJ, Holtel MR, Burgess LPA, Peters LJ. Telehealth: voice therapy using telecommunications technology. Am J Speech Lang Pathol. 2003;12(4):432-439. doi: 10.1044/1058-0360(2003/089) [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 143. Theodoros DG, Hill AJ, Russell TG. Clinical and quality of life outcomes of speech treatment for Parkinson’s disease delivered to the home via telerehabilitation: a noninferiority randomized controlled trial. Am J Speech Lang Pathol. 2016;25(2):214-232. doi: 10.1044/2015_AJSLP-15-0005 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 144. Constantinescu G, Theodoros D, Russell T, Ward E, Wilson S, Wootton R. Treating disordered speech and voice in Parkinson’s disease online: a randomized controlled non-inferiority trial. Int J Lang Commun Disord. 2011;46(1):1-16. doi: 10.3109/13682822.2010.484848 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 145. Constantinescu G, Theodoros D, Russell T, Ward E, Wilson S, Wootton R. Assessing disordered speech and voice in Parkinson’s disease: a telerehabilitation application. Int J Lang Commun Disord. 2010;45(6):630-644. doi: 10.3109/13682820903470569 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 146. Ward EC, Burns CL, Theodoros DG, Russell TG. Impact of dysphagia severity on clinical decision making via telerehabilitation. Telemed J E Health. 2014;20(4):296-303. doi: 10.1089/tmj.2013.0198 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 147. Ward EC, Sharma S, Burns C, Theodoros D, Russell T. Validity of conducting clinical dysphagia assessments for patients with normal to mild cognitive impairment via telerehabilitation. Dysphagia. 2012;27(4):460-472. doi: 10.1007/s00455-011-9390-9 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 148. Cha D, Shin SH, Kim J, et al. Feasibility of asynchronous and automated telemedicine in otolaryngology: prospective cross-sectional study. JMIR Med Inform. 2020;8(10):e23680. doi: 10.2196/23680 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 149. Binol H, Niazi MKK, Essig G, et al. Digital otoscopy videos versus composite images: a reader study to compare the accuracy of ENT physicians. Laryngoscope. 2021;131(5):E1668-E1676. doi: 10.1002/lary.29253 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 150. Halpren-Ruder D, Chang AM, Hollander JE, Shah A. Quality assurance in telehealth: adherence to evidence-based indicators. Telemed J E Health. 2019;25(7):599-603. doi: 10.1089/tmj.2018.0149 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 151. Ramos A, Rodriguez C, Martinez-Beneyto P, et al. Use of telemedicine in the remote programming of cochlear implants. Acta Otolaryngol. 2009;129(5):533-540. doi: 10.1080/00016480802294369 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 152. Xu CQ, Smith AC, Scuffham PA, Wootton R. A cost minimisation analysis of a telepaediatric otolaryngology service. BMC Health Serv Res. 2008;8:30. doi: 10.1186/1472-6963-8-30 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 153. Philips R, Seim N, Matrka L, et al. Cost savings associated with an outpatient otolaryngology telemedicine clinic. Laryngoscope Investig Otolaryngol. 2019;4(2):234-240. doi: 10.1002/lio2.244 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 154. Wall LR, Kularatna S, Ward EC, et al. Economic analysis of a three-arm RCT exploring the delivery of intensive, prophylactic swallowing therapy to patients with head and neck cancer during (chemo)radiotherapy. Dysphagia. 2019;34(5):627-639. doi: 10.1007/s00455-018-9960-1 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 155. Qualliotine JR, Orosco RK. Self-removing passive drain to facilitate postoperative care via telehealth during the COVID-19 pandemic. Head Neck. 2020;42(6):1305-1307. doi: 10.1002/hed.26203 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 156. Fieux M, Duret S, Bawazeer N, Denoix L, Zaouche S, Tringali S. Telemedicine for ENT: effect on quality of care during COVID-19 pandemic. Eur Ann Otorhinolaryngol Head Neck Dis. 2020;137(4):257-261. doi: 10.1016/j.anorl.2020.06.014 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 157. Jiang W, Magit AE, Carvalho D. Equal access to telemedicine during COVID-19 pandemic: a pediatric otolaryngology perspective. Laryngoscope. 2021;131(5):1175-1179. doi: 10.1002/lary.29164 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 158. Kolb CM, Born K, Banker K, Barth PC, Aaronson NL. Improving attendance and patient experiences during the expansion of a telehealth-based pediatric otolaryngology practice. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2021;164(5):952-958. doi: 10.1177/0194599820965917 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 159. Govil N, Raol N, Tey CS, Goudy SL, Alfonso KP. Rapid telemedicine implementation in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic in an academic pediatric otolaryngology practice. Int J Pediatr Otorhinolaryngol. 2020;139:110447. doi: 10.1016/j.ijporl.2020.110447 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 160. Darr A, Senior A, Argyriou K, et al. The impact of the coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic on elective paediatric otolaryngology outpatient services—an analysis of virtual outpatient clinics in a tertiary referral centre using the modified paediatric otolaryngology telemedicine satisfaction survey (POTSS). Int J Pediatr Otorhinolaryngol. 2020;138:110383. doi: 10.1016/j.ijporl.2020.110383 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 161. Zammit M, Siau R, Williams C, Hussein A. Patient satisfaction from ENT telephone consultations during the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic. J Laryngol Otol. Published online November 17, 2020. doi: 10.1017/S0022215120002480 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 162. Belcher RH, Phillips J, Virgin F, et al. Pediatric otolaryngology telehealth in response to COVID-19 pandemic: lessons learned and impact on the future management of pediatric patients. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol. 2021;130(7):788-795. doi: 10.1177/0003489420976163 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 163. Vijayasundaram S, Karthikeyan P, Mehta SD. Proficiency of virtual follow-up amongst tinnitus patients who underwent intratympanic steroid therapy amidst COVID 19 pandemic. Am J Otolaryngol. 2020;41(6):102680. doi: 10.1016/j.amjoto.2020.102680 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 164. Svider PF, Setzen M, Ow R, Folbe AJ, Eloy JA, Johnson AP. Incorporation of telemedicine by rhinologists: the COVID-19 pandemic and beyond. Am J Otolaryngol. 2020;41(6):102567. doi: 10.1016/j.amjoto.2020.102567 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 165. Ohlstein JF, Garner J, Takashima M. Telemedicine in otolaryngology in the COVID-19 era: initial lessons learned. Laryngoscope. 2020;130(11):2568-2573. doi: 10.1002/lary.29030 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 166. Layfield E, Triantafillou V, Prasad A, et al. Telemedicine for head and neck ambulatory visits during COVID-19: evaluating usability and patient satisfaction. Head Neck. 2020;42(7):1681-1689. doi: 10.1002/hed.26285 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 167. Jayawardena ADL, Mankarious LA, Keamy DG, Cohen MS. Pediatric, family-centered, “at-home” otologic physical examination in the COVID-19 era. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2020;163(5):1061-1063. doi: 10.1177/0194599820934776 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 168. Kasle DA, Torabi SJ, Savoca EL, Judson BL, Manes RP. Outpatient otolaryngology in the era of COVID-19: a data-driven analysis of practice patterns. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2020;163(1):138-144. doi: 10.1177/0194599820928987 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 169. Snyderman CH, Gardner PA, Lanisnik B, Ravnik J. Surgical telementoring: a new model for surgical training. Laryngoscope. 2016;126(6):1334-1338. doi: 10.1002/lary.25753 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 170. Burgess LP, Holtel MR, Syms MJ, Birkmire-Peters DP, Peters LJ, Mashima PA. Overview of telemedicine applications for otolaryngology. Laryngoscope. 1999;109(9):1433-1437. doi: 10.1097/00005537-199909000-00014 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 171. Burgess LPA, Syms MJ, Holtel MR, Birkmire-Peters DP, Johnson RE, Ramsey MJ. Telemedicine: teleproctored endoscopic sinus surgery. Laryngoscope. 2002;112(2):216-219. doi: 10.1097/00005537-200202000-00003 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 172. Klapan I, Simicić L, Risavi R, et al. Tele-3-dimensional computer-assisted functional endoscopic sinus surgery: new dimension in the surgery of the nose and paranasal sinuses. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2002;127(6):549-557. doi: 10.1067/mhn.2002.129732 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 173. Klapan I, Simicić L, Pasarić K, et al. Realtime transfer of live video images in parallel with three-dimensional modelling of the surgical field in computer-assisted telesurgery. J Telemed Telecare. 2002;8(3):125-130. doi: 10.1177/1357633X0200800301 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 174. Berg BW, Beamis EK, Murray WB, Boedeker BH. Remote videolaryngoscopy skills training for pre-hospital personnel. Stud Health Technol Inform. 2009;142:31-33. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 175. Prescher H, Grover E, Mosier J, et al. Telepresent intubation supervision is as effective as in-person supervision of procedurally naive operators. Telemed J E Health. 2015;21(3):170-175. doi: 10.1089/tmj.2014.0090 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 176. Faulkner J, Taylor E, Nessen S, Boedeker D, Boedeker B. Development of a tele ENT program to support distant military treatment facilities for the European regional medical command. Stud Health Technol Inform. 2014;196:101-106. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 177. Melo TM de, Alvarenga K de F, Blasca WQ, Taga MF de L. Community health agents training on hearing health: effectiveness of videoconference. Pro Fono. 2010;22(2):139-145. doi: 10.1590/s0104-56872010000200012 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Associated Data
This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.
Supplementary Materials
Supplemental material, sj-docx-1-opn-10.1177_2473974X211072791 for Telemedicine and Telementoring in Rhinology, Otology, and Laryngology: A Scoping Review by Angela Yang, Dayoung Kim, Peter H. Hwang and Matt Lechner in OTO Open: The Official Open Access Journal of the American Academy of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery Foundation



