Objective: The purpose of this study was to systematically evaluate the literature on the frequency of reporting of sociodemographic data (gender, race, ethnicity, education status, health insurance status, geographic location of residence, and socioeconomic status) among interventional clinical trials involving cochlear implant patients. Databases Reviewed: A systematic search was performed in PubMed, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Web of Science, and SCOPUS to identify peer reviewed research. Methods: A systematic review was performed, which included original prospective clinical trial research studies involving cochlear implantation and/or interventional trials involving cochlear implant patients. Collected data included funding type, level of evidence, race reporting, ethnicity reporting, socioeconomic status reporting, education level reporting, type of insurance, geographic location, and gender of patients. Results: A total of 644 articles were included for review. Gender was the most reported sociodemographic factor (70% of included studies). Reporting of other data among included studies was low: educational level (6%), socioeconomic status (2%), race (1%), ethnicity (1%), insurance status (0.3%), and geography (1%). The odds of reporting gender (odds ratio [OR] = 1.51), education (OR = 1.81), and geography (OR = 2.72) increased with each subsequent publication date decade; however, this trend was not seen for reporting of race, ethnicity, socioeconomic status, or insurance. The reporting of gender was less likely to be reported in studies with the pediatric participants (OR = 0.62), level II evidence (OR = 0.14), and device programming interventional studies (OR = 0.26). Conclusion: Reporting of sociodemographic data, other than gender, is low among prospective clinical trials involving cochlear implant patients. The lack of reporting of this key data may limit research rigor and generalizability. Clinical researchers are advised to prospectively collect these data to promote equity in cochlear implant research and clinical care.

ObjectivesThe American Joint Committee on Cancer's 8th edition (AJCC‐8) separates oropharyngeal squamous cell carcinomas (OPSCCs) into human papillomavirus‐positive (HPV+) tumors and HPV‐negative tumors. Although AJCC‐8 improves prognostic prediction for survival for the majority of HPV+ OPSCC, outliers are still encountered. The goal of this manuscript is to validate the AJCC‐8 as a better metric of survivability than the AJCC‐7 in an historically under‐served rural population with confounding variables, such as tobacco use, alcohol consumption, and poor health care access and to analyze the role of extranodal extension (ENE) in this population.DesignRetrospective cohort study.ResultsCompared to AJCC‐7, AJCC‐8 had a higher odds ratio (OR) for predicting mortality of stage IV HPV+ OPSCCs versus stages I–III. On multivariate analysis, HPV+ OPSCCs with ENE had a higher OR of mortality compared to ENE‐ OPSCCs. In addition, HPV+ OPSCC patients with a Charlson Comorbidity Index (CCI) > 3 had a higher OR of mortality compared to those with a CCI ≤ 3. Patients with Medicaid/self‐pay status had a higher OR of mortality compared to those with private insurance/Medicare. Finally, patients from rural populations had a higher OR of presenting with stage IV disease, a CCI > 3, and Medicaid/self‐pay status.ConclusionsDespite not being a discrete part of the AJCC‐8 staging rubric, ENE was found to have a significant impact on mortality among this population, whereas tobacco use had no effect. Rural patients were more likely to present with stage IV disease, CCI > 3, and Medicaid/self‐pay status. Stage IV disease was also associated with a higher OR of mortality.Level of Evidence4 Laryngoscope, 133:2621–2626, 2023

ObjectivesTo conduct a scoping systematic review of the literature on the use of telemedicine to evaluate, diagnose, and manage patients with dizziness.Data SourcesWeb of Science, SCOPUS, and MEDLINE PubMed databases.Study SelectionThe inclusion criteria included the following: pertaining to telemedicine and the evaluation, diagnosis, treatment, or management of dizziness. Exclusion criteria included the following: single-case studies, meta-analyses, and literature and systematic reviews.Data ExtractionOutcomes recorded for each article included the following: study type, patient population, telemedicine format, dizziness characteristics, level of evidence, and quality assessment.Data SynthesisThe search returned 15,408 articles, and a team of four screened the articles for inclusion criteria status. A total of 9 articles met the inclusion criteria and were included for review. Of the nine articles, four were randomized clinical trials, three were prospective cohort studies, and two were qualitative studies. The telemedicine format was synchronous in three studies and asynchronous in six studies. Two of the studies involved acute dizziness only, four involved chronic dizziness only, one involved both acute and chronic dizziness, and two did not specify dizziness type. Six of the studies included the diagnosis of dizziness, two involved the evaluation of dizziness, and three involved treatment/management. Some of the reported benefits of telemedicine for dizziness patients included cost savings, convenience, high patient satisfaction, and improvement in dizziness symptoms. Limitations included access to telemedicine technology, Internet connectivity, and dizziness symptoms interfering with the telemedicine application.ConclusionsFew studies investigate the evaluation, diagnosis, or management of dizziness using telemedicine. The lack of protocols and standards of care for telemedicine evaluation of dizzy patients creates some challenges in care delivery; however, these reviewed studies provide examples of the breadth of care that has been provided remotely.