Luv Javia1, Ellen S Deutsch. 1. Division of Pediatric Otolaryngology, The Children's Hospital of Philadelphia, Department of Otorhinolaryngology/Head and Neck Surgery, The Perelman School of Medicine of the University of Pennsylvania, PA 19104, USA.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To conduct a systematic review of published articles that describe simulators that could be used in otolaryngology for education, skill acquisition, and/or skill improvement. Data Sources Ovid and Embase databases searched July 14, 2011. REVIEW METHODS: Three hundred fifty-three abstracts were independently reviewed by both authors, then 154 eligible articles were reviewed by both authors, and 95 articles were categorized by organ system (eg, otologic); type of simulator (eg, physical, virtual); whether the simulator was a prototype, could be purchased, or was constructed; validation; and level of learning assessment. Discrepancies were resolved by re-review and discussion. RESULTS: In addition to 11 overview articles, 28 articles described 16 otology simulators, most of which are virtual and prototypes. Ninteen articles described 10 sinus/rhinology simulators; most are virtual surgery simulators and prototypes. Eight articles described 8 oral cavity simulators, and 8 articles described neck simulators. Seventeen articles described 13 bronchoscopy simulators; several are full-body high-technology manikins adapted from other purposes. Five articles described eclectic simulators, including some for learning nontechnical and teamwork skills. Half of the simulators have been validated. Learning levels were often not assessed or assessment was limited to the learners' perceptions. CONCLUSION: A wide variety of simulators are available or under development. Lack of unified validation concepts and limited descriptions restricted our ability to assess model characteristics, availability, and validation. Simulators are emerging as powerful tools to facilitate learning; this review may provide a platform for discussion and refinement of the information reported and analyzed in evaluating simulators.
OBJECTIVE: To conduct a systematic review of published articles that describe simulators that could be used in otolaryngology for education, skill acquisition, and/or skill improvement. Data Sources Ovid and Embase databases searched July 14, 2011. REVIEW METHODS: Three hundred fifty-three abstracts were independently reviewed by both authors, then 154 eligible articles were reviewed by both authors, and 95 articles were categorized by organ system (eg, otologic); type of simulator (eg, physical, virtual); whether the simulator was a prototype, could be purchased, or was constructed; validation; and level of learning assessment. Discrepancies were resolved by re-review and discussion. RESULTS: In addition to 11 overview articles, 28 articles described 16 otology simulators, most of which are virtual and prototypes. Ninteen articles described 10 sinus/rhinology simulators; most are virtual surgery simulators and prototypes. Eight articles described 8 oral cavity simulators, and 8 articles described neck simulators. Seventeen articles described 13 bronchoscopy simulators; several are full-body high-technology manikins adapted from other purposes. Five articles described eclectic simulators, including some for learning nontechnical and teamwork skills. Half of the simulators have been validated. Learning levels were often not assessed or assessment was limited to the learners' perceptions. CONCLUSION: A wide variety of simulators are available or under development. Lack of unified validation concepts and limited descriptions restricted our ability to assess model characteristics, availability, and validation. Simulators are emerging as powerful tools to facilitate learning; this review may provide a platform for discussion and refinement of the information reported and analyzed in evaluating simulators.
Authors: Armando De Virgilio; Andrea Costantino; Claudia Ebm; Valerio Conti; Tiziana Mondello; Matteo Di Bari; Giovanni Cugini; Giuseppe Mercante; Giuseppe Spriano Journal: Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol Date: 2020-05-07 Impact factor: 2.503
Authors: Rosh K V Sethi; Elliott D Kozin; Aaron K Remenschneider; Daniel J Lee; Richard E Gliklich; Mark G Shrime; Stacey T Gray Journal: Laryngoscope Date: 2014-06-10 Impact factor: 3.325
Authors: Philip G Chen; Daniel R Chang; Erik K Weitzel; Jennifer Peel; Rakesh K Chandra; K Christopher McMains Journal: Allergy Rhinol (Providence) Date: 2016-01-01