Search

Your search keyword '"Tolisano, Anthony M."' showing total 298 results
Start Over Author "Tolisano, Anthony M."
298 results on '"Tolisano, Anthony M."'

4. How Do Patients and Otolaryngologists Define Dizziness?

Author

Murphy, Brianna L., primary, Fischer, Jakob L., additional, Tolisano, Anthony M., additional, Navarro, Alvaro I., additional, Trinh, Lily, additional, Abuzeid, Waleed M., additional, Humphreys, Ian M., additional, Akbar, Nadeem A., additional, Shah, Sharan, additional, Schneider, John S., additional, Riley, Charles A., additional, and McCoul, Edward D., additional

Published
2024
Full Text
View/download PDF

6. Are you congested? A comparison of definitions between otolaryngologists and their patients.

Author

Fischer, Jakob L., Tolisano, Anthony M., Navarro, Alvaro I., Trinh, Lily, Abuzeid, Waleed M., Humphreys, Ian M., Akbar, Nadeem A., Shah, Sharan, Schneider, John S., Riley, Charles A., and McCoul, Edward D.

Subjects
*OTOLARYNGOLOGISTS, *PATIENTS' attitudes, *MULTIVARIATE analysis, *STANDARD deviations, *MEDICAL personnel
Abstract

Objective: To assess for differences of intended meaning in the description of congestion‐related symptoms among otolaryngology patients and clinicians. Materials and Methods: Between June 2020 and October 2022, a questionnaire consisting of 16 common descriptors of congestion‐related symptoms within four domains (obstructive‐related, pressure‐related, mucus‐related, and other symptoms) was completed by patients and otolaryngologists at five tertiary otolaryngology practices. The primary outcome was to assess differences in patient and clinician perceptions of congestion‐related symptoms. Differences based on geographic location was a secondary outcome. Results: A total of 349 patients and 40 otolaryngologists participated. Patients selected a median of 6.8 (standard deviation [SD] 3.0) terms compared with 4.0 (SD 1.6) terms for otolaryngologists (p < 0.001). Otolaryngologists were more likely to select obstruction‐related symptoms (difference 6.3%; 95% confidence interval [CI] 3.8%, 8.9%). Patients were more likely to describe congestion using pressure‐related (−43.7%; −58.9%, −28.5%), mucus‐related (−43.5%; −59.3%, −27.8%), and other symptoms (−44.2; −51.3%, −37.1%) compared with otolaryngologists. There were no significant differences identified based on geographic location with regard to symptom domains on multivariate analysis. Conclusions: There are differences between otolaryngologists and their patients in the interpretation of the symptoms of congestion. Clinicians tended to have a narrower interpretation of congestion that was limited to the obstruction‐related symptom domain, while patients defined congestion more broadly. This has important counseling and communication implications for the clinician. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Published
2024
Full Text
View/download PDF

14. Layperson Perception of Reflux‐Related Symptoms

Author

Fischer, Jakob L., primary, Tolisano, Anthony M., additional, Navarro, Alvaro I., additional, Trinh, Lily, additional, Abuzeid, Waleed M., additional, Humphreys, Ian M., additional, Akbar, Nadeem A., additional, Shah, Sharan, additional, Schneider, John S., additional, Riley, Charles A., additional, and McCoul, Edward D., additional

Published
2023
Full Text
View/download PDF

32. What do we mean when we have a “sinus infection?”

Author

Riley, Charles A., primary, Navarro, Alvaro I., additional, Trinh, Lily, additional, Abuzeid, Waleed M., additional, Humphreys, Ian M., additional, Akbar, Nadeem A., additional, Shah, Sharan, additional, Lee, Jivianne T., additional, Wu, Tara, additional, Schneider, John S., additional, Tolisano, Anthony M., additional, and McCoul, Edward D., additional

Published
2022
Full Text
View/download PDF

39. Ergonomics in Otolaryngology: A Systematic Review and Meta‐analysis.

Author

Ryan, Matthew T., Montgomery, Emily A., Fryer, Jacob, Yang, Alex W., Mills, Channah, Watson, Nora, Noller, Michael, Riley, Charles A., and Tolisano, Anthony M.

Abstract

Objectives: To determine the proportion of otolaryngologists with work‐related musculoskeletal discomfort (WRMD) and to review objective ergonomic data that contribute to WRMD. Study Design: Systematic review and meta‐analysis. Methods: A comprehensive search of the literature identified 1121 articles for initial review of which 19 (3563 participants) met criteria for qualitative discussion and eight (2192 participants) met criteria for meta‐analysis. Random effects meta‐analyses were used to estimate the proportion of otolaryngologists reporting WRMD. Results: The overall proportion (95% confidence intervals [CI]) of general otolaryngologists reporting WRMD was 0.79 (0.66, 0.88) for any symptoms; 0.54 (0.40, 0.67) for neck symptoms; 0.33 (0.20, 0.49) for shoulder symptoms; and 0.49 (0.40, 0.59) for back symptoms. Surgeons performing primarily subspecialty cases had a lower estimated overall prevalence of WRMD versus those performing general ENT cases, however the odds ratio (OR) was not statistically significant (OR [95% confidence interval] 0.53 [0.22, 1.25]). 23%–84% of otolaryngologists underwent medical treatment for WRMD. 5%–23% took time off work and 1%–6% stopped operating completely as a result of WRMD. 23%–62.5% of otolaryngologists believed WRMD negatively impacted their quality of life. Objective measures of ergonomic posture indicate moderate to severe risk of injury during the routine clinic and surgical procedures with none found to be low risk. Conclusions: Ergonomic stressors among otolaryngologists contribute to a high rate of WRMD across all subspecialties with notable impact on productivity, longevity, and quality of life. Laryngoscope, 133:467–475, 2023 [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Published
2023
Full Text
View/download PDF

Catalog

Books, media, physical & digital resources
See catalog results