Publication Types:

Sort by year:

Current status of handheld otoscopy training: a systematic review

OtologyOtoscopySurgical trainingSystematic reviewTechnical skills
Frithioff A, Guldager M, Andersen SA
Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol. 2021 Feb 25:3489421997289. [Epub ahead of print]
Publication year: 2021

Objective: Otoscopy is a frequently performed procedure and competency in this skill is important across many specialties. We aim to systematically review current medical educational evidence for training of handheld otoscopy skills.

Methods: Following the PRISMA guideline, studies reporting on training and/or assessment of handheld otoscopy were identified searching the following databases: PubMed, Embase, OVID, the Cochrane Library, PloS Medicine, Directory of Open Access Journal (DOAJ), and Web of Science. Two reviewers extracted data on study design, training intervention, educational outcomes, and results. Quality of educational evidence was assessed along with classification according to Kirkpatrick’s model of educational outcomes.

Results: The searches yielded a total of 6064 studies with a final inclusion of 33 studies for the qualitative synthesis. Handheld otoscopy training could be divided into workshops, physical simulators, web-based training/e-learning, and smartphone-enabled otoscopy. Workshops were the most commonly described educational intervention and typically consisted of lectures, hands-on demonstrations, and training on peers. Almost all studies reported a favorable effect on either learner attitude, knowledge, or skills. The educational quality of the studies was reasonable but the educational outcomes were mostly evaluated on the lower Kirkpatrick levels with only a single study determining the effects of training on actual change in the learner behavior.

Conclusion: Overall, it seems that any systematic approach to training of handheld otoscopy is beneficial in training regardless of learner level, but the heterogeneity of the studies makes comparisons between studies difficult and the relative effect sizes of the interventions could not be determined.

3D-printed models for temporal bone surgical training: A systematic review.

3D-printingLearning toolsSystematic reviewTechnical skillsTemporal bone surgery
Frithioff A, Frendø M, Pedersen DB, Sørensen MS, Andersen SA
Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2021 Jan 20 [Accepted].
Publication year: 2021

The Use of Generalizability Theory for Exploring Reliability of Assessment of Technical Skills and Sources of Variance: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

AssessmentSurgical trainingSystematic reviewTechnical skills
Andersen SA, Nayahangan LJ, Park YS, Konge L
Acad Med. 2020 Dec 30 [Accepted].
Publication year: 2020

Development and validation of an assessment tool for technical skills in handheld otoscopy

ArticleAssessmentOtologyOtoscopyTechnical skills
Guldager M, Melchiors J, Andersen SA.
Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol. 2020 Jul;129(7):715-721.
Publication year: 2020

OBJECTIVE: Handheld otoscopy requires both technical and diagnostic skills, and is often reported to be insufficient after medical training. We aimed to develop and gather validity evidence for an assessment tool for handheld otoscopy using contemporary medical educational standards.
STUDY DESIGN: Educational study.
SETTING: University/teaching hospital.
SUBJECTS AND METHODS: A structured Delphi methodology was used to develop the assessment tool: nine key opinion leaders (otologists) in undergraduate training of otoscopy iteratively achieved consensus on the content. Next, validity evidence was gathered by the video-taped assessment of two handheld otoscopy performances of 15 medical students (novices) and 11 specialists in otorhinolaryngology using two raters. Standard setting (pass/fail criteria) was explored using the contrasting groups and Angoff methods.
RESULTS: The developed Copenhagen Assessment Tool of Handheld Otoscopy Skills (CATHOS) consists 10 items rated using a 5-point Likert scale with descriptive anchors. Validity evidence was collected and structured according to Messick’s framework: for example the CATHOS had excellent discriminative validity (mean difference in performance between novices and experts 20.4 out of 50 points, p<0.001); and high internal consistency (Cronbach’s alpha=0.94). Finally, a pass/fail score was established at 30 points for medical students and 42 points for specialists in ORL.
CONCLUSION: We have developed and gathered validity evidence for an assessment tool of technical skills of handheld otoscopy and set standards of performance. Standardized assessment allows for individualized learning to the level of proficiency and could be implemented in under- and postgraduate handheld otoscopy training curricula, and is also useful in evaluating training interventions.