Skip to main content
×
×
Home

Quality of reporting and risk of bias in therapeutic otolaryngology publications

  • N M Kaper (a1), K M A Swart (a1), W Grolman (a1) and G J M G Van Der Heijden (a1) (a2)
Abstract
Background:

High-quality trials have the potential to influence clinical practice.

Methods:

Ten otolaryngology journals with the highest 2011 impact factors were selected and publications from 2010 were extracted. From all medical journals, the 20 highest impact factor journals were selected, and publications related to otolaryngology for 2010 and 2011 were extracted. For all publications, the reporting quality and risk of bias were assessed.

Results:

The impact factor was 1.8–2.8 for otolaryngology journals and 6.0–101.8 for medical journals. Of 1500 otolaryngology journal articles, 262 were therapeutic studies; 94 had a high reporting quality and 5 a low risk of bias. Of 10 967 medical journal articles, 76 were therapeutic studies; 57 had a high reporting quality and 8 a low risk of bias.

Conclusion:

Reporting quality was high for 45 per cent of otolaryngology-related publications and 9 per cent met quality standards. General journals had higher impact factors than otolaryngology journals. Reporting quality was higher and risk of bias lower in general journals than in otolaryngology journals. Nevertheless, 76 per cent of articles in high impact factor journals carried a high risk of bias. Better reported and designed studies are the goal, with less risk of bias, especially in otolaryngology journals.

  • View HTML
    • Send article to Kindle

      To send this article to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about sending to your Kindle. Find out more about sending to your Kindle.

      Note you can select to send to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be sent to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

      Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

      Quality of reporting and risk of bias in therapeutic otolaryngology publications
      Available formats
      ×
      Send article to Dropbox

      To send this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Dropbox.

      Quality of reporting and risk of bias in therapeutic otolaryngology publications
      Available formats
      ×
      Send article to Google Drive

      To send this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Google Drive.

      Quality of reporting and risk of bias in therapeutic otolaryngology publications
      Available formats
      ×
Copyright
Corresponding author
Address for correspondence: Dr Nina M Kaper, Department of Otorhinolaryngology and Head and Neck Surgery, Brain Center Rudolf Magnus, University Medical Center Utrecht, Heidelberglaan 100, PO Box 85500, 3508 GA Utrecht, Utrecht, The Netherlands Fax: +31 (0)30 254 1922 E-mail: ninakaper@hotmail.com
References
Hide All
1 Dawes, M, Summerskill, W, Glasziou, P, Cartabellotta, A, Martin, J, Hopayian, K et al. Sicily statement on evidence-based practice. BMC Med Educ 2005;5:1
2 Grol, R, Grimshaw, J. From best evidence to best practice: effective implementation of change in patients' care. Lancet 2003;362:1225–30
3 Burton, MJ. Evidence-based medicine and otolaryngology–HNS: passing fashion or permanent solution. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2007;137:4751S
4 Ioannidis, JP, Greenland, S, Hlatky, MA, Khoury, MJ, MacLeod, MR, Moher, D et al. Increasing value and reducing waste in research design, conduct, and analysis. Lancet 2014;383:166–75
5 Shin, JJ, Rauch, SD, Wasserman, J, Coblens, O, Randolph, GW. Evidence-based medicine in otolaryngology, part 2: the current state of affairs. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2011;144:331–6
6 Turner, L, Shamseer, L, Altman, DG, Schulz, KF, Moher, D. Does use of the CONSORT Statement impact the completeness of reporting of randomised controlled trials published in medical journals? A Cochrane review. Syst Rev 2012;1:60
7 The CONSORT statement. In: http://www.consort-statement.org [11 August 2016]
8 STROBE statement. In: http://www.strobe-statement.org [11 August 2016]
9 Brody, S. Impact factor is the best operational measure for medical journals. Lancet 1995;346:1300–1
10 The Clarivate Analytics Impact Factor. In: https://clarivate.com/essays/impact-factor/ [11 August 2016]
11 Seglen, PO. Why the impact factor of journals should not be used for evaluating research. BMJ 1997;314:498502
12 Science in Transition. In: http://scienceintransition.nl/over-science-in-transition/position-paper [11 August 2016]
13 Journal Citation Report 2011. In: https://clarivate.com/products/journal-citation-reports/ [6 November 2017]
14 McMaster University – HiRU's Approach to Search Filter Development. In: https://hiru.mcmaster.ca/hiru/HiRU_approach.pdf [11 August 2016]
15 Grobbee, DE, Hoes, AW. Clinical Epidemiology: Principles, Methods, and Applications for Clinical Research. London: Jones and Bartlett Publishers, 2009
16 Higgins, JP, Green, S, eds. Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions, Version 5.1.0 (updated March 2011). London: Cochrane Collaboration, 2011
17 Higgins, JP, Altman, DG, Sterne, JA. Chapter 8: Assessing risk of bias in included studies. In: Higgins, JP, Green, S, eds. Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions, Version 5.1.0 (updated March 2011). London: Cochrane Collaboration, 2011
18 Glasziou, P, Haynes, B. The paths from research to improved health outcomes. ACP J Club 2005;142:A810
Recommend this journal

Email your librarian or administrator to recommend adding this journal to your organisation's collection.

The Journal of Laryngology & Otology
  • ISSN: 0022-2151
  • EISSN: 1748-5460
  • URL: /core/journals/journal-of-laryngology-and-otology
Please enter your name
Please enter a valid email address
Who would you like to send this to? *
×

Keywords

Metrics

Altmetric attention score

Full text views

Total number of HTML views: 8
Total number of PDF views: 122 *
Loading metrics...

Abstract views

Total abstract views: 258 *
Loading metrics...

* Views captured on Cambridge Core between 12th December 2017 - 22nd July 2018. This data will be updated every 24 hours.