↓ Skip to main content

Comparing Videostroboscopy and Direct Microlaryngoscopy: An Argument for Flexible Consent and Operative Plan

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Voice, November 2017
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

facebook
1 Facebook page

Readers on

mendeley
22 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Article details
Title
Comparing Videostroboscopy and Direct Microlaryngoscopy: An Argument for Flexible Consent and Operative Plan
Published in
Journal of Voice, November 2017
DOI 10.1016/j.jvoice.2017.10.005
Pubmed ID
Authors
Abstract

Office-based evaluation of glottic lesions has progressed significantly, but there can still be discrepancies compared with direct microlaryngoscopy (DML) in the operating room. We performed a prospective evaluation comparing diagnosis of epithelial and lamina propria glottic lesions on rigid telescopic strobovideolaryngoscopy (RTS) with DML. Fifty subjects were enrolled and underwent RTS followed by DML. We compared presence and extent (unilateral or bilateral) of lamina propria and epithelial lesions. Primary (diagnoses motivating an operation) and secondary (diagnoses not requiring an operation) were considered. Changes in diagnosis and operative plan based on DML findings were evaluated. Sixty-eight lesions were identified on RTS, including 53 primary (15 epithelial, 38 lamina propria) and 15 secondary diagnoses. RTS was accurate in only 36% of subjects. Ten subjects had a different primary pathology identified on DML. A change in surgical management occurred in 16% of subjects. This is the first prospective study evaluating how both diagnosis and operative plan for epithelial and lamina propria glottic lesions differ based on RTS and DML. Despite significant advances in office-based diagnosis of glottic lesions, there are still notable limitations. Clinicians should consider these findings when counseling patients on interpretation and plan for findings based on RTS. Obtaining a flexible surgical consent and counseling patients on the potential for new diagnoses and interventions based on DML is warranted.

Login to access the Attention Digest and the Sentiment Analysis related to this output.

Timeline Attention over time Attention Score history
Login to access the full charts related to this output.
Activity
Login to access the full charts related to this output.
Mendeley demographics

Mendeley demographics

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 22 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Login to view Mendeley reader trends over time.

Geographical breakdown

Geographical breakdown
Country Count As %
Unknown 22 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status
Readers by professional status Count As %
Other 2 9%
Student > Bachelor 2 9%
Student > Ph. D. Student 2 9%
Lecturer 1 5%
Student > Doctoral Student 1 5%
Other 4 18%
Unknown 10 45%
Readers by discipline
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 6 27%
Arts and Humanities 1 5%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 1 5%
Linguistics 1 5%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 1 5%
Other 2 9%
Unknown 10 45%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 05 December 2017.
All research outputs
#22,764,772
of 25,382,440 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Voice
#1,891
of 2,243 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#385,556
of 446,465 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Voice
#37
of 47 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,382,440 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,243 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.6. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 446,465 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 47 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.