Recent Randomized Controlled Trials in Otolaryngology

Objective To assess recent trends in the prevalence and quality of reporting of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in 4 otolaryngology journals. Study Design Methodology and reporting analysis. Setting Randomized controlled trials in 4 otolaryngology journals. Subjects and Methods All RCTs published from 2011 to 2013 in 4 major otolaryngology journals were examined for characteristics of study design, quality of design and reporting, and funding. Results Of 5279 articles published in 4 leading otolaryngology journals from 2011 to 2013, 189 (3.3%) were RCTs. The majority of RCTs were clinical studies (86%), with the largest proportion consisting of sinonasal topics (31%). Most interventions were medical (46%), followed by surgical (38%) and mixed (16%). In terms of quality, randomization method was reported in 54% of RCTs, blinding in 33%, and adverse events in 65%. Intention-to-treat analysis was used in 32%; P values were reported in 87% and confidence intervals in 10%. Research funding was most often absent or not reported (55%), followed by not-for-profit (25%). Conclusions Based on review of 4 otolaryngology journals, RCTs are still a small proportion of all published studies in the field of otolaryngology. There seem to be trends toward improvement in quality of design and reporting of RCTs, although many quality features remain suboptimal. Practitioners both designing and interpreting RCTs should critically evaluate RCTs for quality.

[1]  Y. Shim,et al.  Effect‐site concentration of remifentanil to prevent cough after laryngomicrosurgery , 2013, The Laryngoscope.

[2]  Brian P. Cunningham,et al.  Have Levels of Evidence Improved the Quality of Orthopaedic Research? , 2013, Clinical orthopaedics and related research.

[3]  Mark P. MacEachern,et al.  Influence of study sponsorship on head and neck cancer randomized trial results , 2012, Head & neck.

[4]  Paul Glasziou,et al.  The scatter of research: cross sectional comparison of randomised trials and systematic reviews across specialties , 2012, BMJ : British Medical Journal.

[5]  G. Randolph,et al.  Evidence-Based Medicine in Otolaryngology, Part 2 , 2011, Otolaryngology--head and neck surgery : official journal of American Academy of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery.

[6]  N. Pouratian,et al.  Standards for reporting randomized controlled trials in neurosurgery. , 2011, Journal of neurosurgery.

[7]  B. Kumar,et al.  Intention to treat analysis: how frequently is it used in ENT randomised controlled trials? , 2010, Clinical otolaryngology : official journal of ENT-UK ; official journal of Netherlands Society for Oto-Rhino-Laryngology & Cervico-Facial Surgery.

[8]  M. Grocott,et al.  Quality of reporting in randomized trials published in high-quality surgical journals. , 2009, Journal of the American College of Surgeons.

[9]  John P A Ioannidis,et al.  Adverse events in randomized trials: neglected, restricted, distorted, and silenced. , 2009, Archives of internal medicine.

[10]  R. Agha,et al.  The reporting quality of randomised controlled trials in surgery: a systematic review. , 2007, International journal of surgery.

[11]  Robert L Kane,et al.  Reporting in randomized clinical trials improved after adoption of the CONSORT statement. , 2007, Journal of clinical epidemiology.

[12]  R. Rosenfeld,et al.  Randomized controlled trials in otolaryngology journals , 2006, Otolaryngology--head and neck surgery : official journal of American Academy of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery.

[13]  V. Karri Randomised clinical trials in plastic surgery: survey of output and quality of reporting. , 2006, Journal of plastic, reconstructive & aesthetic surgery : JPRAS.

[14]  R. Rosenfeld,et al.  Levels of evidence in otolaryngology journals , 2005, Otolaryngology--head and neck surgery : official journal of American Academy of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery.

[15]  Joel Gagnier,et al.  The quality of randomized trial reporting in leading medical journals since the revised CONSORT statement. , 2005, Contemporary clinical trials.

[16]  Christian Gluud,et al.  Association of funding and conclusions in randomized drug trials: a reflection of treatment effect or adverse events? , 2003, JAMA.

[17]  A. Brawanski,et al.  Level of evidence and citation index in current neurosurgical publications , 2003, Neurosurgical Review.

[18]  J. Ioannidis,et al.  Can quality of clinical trials and meta-analyses be quantified? , 1998, The Lancet.

[19]  K. Ah-See,et al.  A qualitative assessment of randomized controlled trials in otolaryngology , 1998, The Journal of Laryngology & Otology.

[20]  A. Maran,et al.  Trends in randomized controlled trials in ENT: a 30-year review , 1997, The Journal of Laryngology & Otology.

[21]  I. Olkin,et al.  Improving the quality of reporting of randomized controlled trials. The CONSORT statement. , 1996, JAMA.

[22]  A R Jadad,et al.  Assessing the quality of reports of randomized clinical trials: is blinding necessary? , 1996, Controlled clinical trials.

[23]  R. Noble Gifts to physicians from industry. , 1991, JAMA.