A pilot randomized controlled trial comparing bismuth iodine paraffin paste external ear pack and no ear pack after middle ear surgery

© 2013, The Author(s). To pilot a substantive randomized control trial comparing post-operative external ear canal pack with no ear pack after middle ear surgery, 32 adults undergoing primary posterior bony canal wall preserving middle ear surgery were randomized to have either a bismuth iodoform paraffin paste pack or no ear pack post-operatively. Outcome measures included clinician- and patient-recorded visual analogue scale scores for ear signs and symptoms at 3weeks and 3months and audiometric findings at 3months post-operatively. There was no statistically significant inter-group difference in 3-week clinician and patient cumulative scores for ear signs and symptoms. There was also no significant difference in graft take rate, appearance of ear canals and audiometric results in either group at 3months. No difference in ear symptoms, clinician findings or hearing was demonstrated between patients with a post-operative pack compared to those without a pack following middle ear surgery in this pilot study

Smartphone speech-to-text applications for communication with profoundly deaf patients

AbstractObjective:Visual communication aids, such as handwriting or typing, are often used to communicate with deaf patients in the clinic. This study aimed to establish the feasibility of communicating through smartphone speech recognition software compared with writing or typing.Method:Thirty doctors and medical students were timed writing, typing and dictating a standard set of six sentences appropriate for a post-operative consultation, and the results were assessed for accuracy and legibility.Results:The mean time for smartphone dictation (17.8 seconds, 95 per cent confidence interval = 17.0–18.7) was significantly faster than writing (59.2 seconds, 95 per cent confidence interval = 56.6–61.7) or typing (44 seconds, 95 per cent confidence interval = 41.0–47.1) (p&lt; 0.001). Speech recognition was slightly less accurate, but accuracy increased with time spent dictating.Conclusion:Smartphone dictation is a feasible alternative to typing and handwriting. Slow speech may improve accuracy. Early clinical experience has been promising.</jats:sec