Hostname: page-component-77f85d65b8-zzw9c Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-03-27T19:06:18.064Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Trends in randomized controlled trials in ENT: a 30-year review

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  29 June 2007

K. W. Ah-See ,
N. C. Molony  and
A. G. D. Maran
K. W. Ah-See*
Affiliation:
Department of Otolaryngology, The Royal Infirmary of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK.
N. C. Molony
Affiliation:
Department of Otolaryngology, The Royal Infirmary of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK.
A. G. D. Maran
Affiliation:
Department of Otolaryngology, The Royal Infirmary of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK.
*
Address for correspondence: K. W. Ah-See M.D., F.R.C.S., Department of Otolaryngology, The Royal Infirmary of Edinburgh, Lauriston Place, Edinburgh EH3 9YW. Fax: 0131-536 6167
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

There is a growth in the demand for clinical practice to be evidence based. Recent years have seen a rise in the number of randomized controlled clinical trials (RCTS). Such trials while acknowledged as the gold standard for evidence can be difficult to perform in surgical specialities. We have recently identified a low proportion of RCTS in the otolaryngology literature. Our aim was to identify any trend in the number of published RCTS within the ENT literature over a 30-year period and to identify which areas of our speciality lend themselves to this form of study design. A Medline search of 10 prominent journals published between 1966 and 1995 was performed. Two hundred and ninety-six RCTS were identified. Only five were published before 1980. Two hundred (71 per cent) of RCTS were in the areas of otology and rhinology. An encouraging trend is seen in RCTS within ENT literature.

Keywords

Medicineevidence basedRandomized controlled trialsOtolaryngologyMedline

Information

Type
Review Article
Information
The Journal of Laryngology & Otology , Volume 111 , Issue 7 , July 1997 , pp. 611 - 613
Copyright
Copyright © JLO (1984) Limited 1997

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Altman, D. G. (1996) Better reporting of randomised controlled trials: the CONSORT statement. British Medical Journal 313: 570–571.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Begg, C., Cho, M., Eastwood, S., Horton, R., Moher, D., Olkin, I., Pitkin, R., Rennie, D., Schulz, K. F., Simel, D., Stroup, D. F. (1996) Improving the quality of reporting of randomized controlled trials: the CONSORT statement. Journal of the American Medical Association 276: 637–639.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Chalmers, I., Dickersin, K., Chalmers, T. C. (1992) Getting to grips with Archie Cochrane's agenda (editorial). British Medical Journal 305: 786–788.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Information and Statistics Division (ISD), Section 6 Outpatient Activity. In Scottish Health Statistics 1997, Information and Statistics Division, The NHS in Scotland (in press).Google Scholar
Journal Citation Reports (1992) Subject Category Listing, Otorhinolaryngology. In Science Citation Index, Institute for Scientific Information Inc., Philadelphia, USA, p 108.Google Scholar
Maran, A. G. D., Molony, N., Armstrong, M., Ah-See, K. W. (1997) Is there an evidence base for the practice of ENT surgery? Clinical Otolaryngology 22(2): 152–157.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Medical Research Council (1948) Streptomycin treatment in pulmonary tuberculosis: a Medical Research Council investigation. British Medical Journal 2: 769–782.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sackett, D. L., Rosenberg, W. M. C., Gray, J. A. M., Haynes, R. B., Richardson, W. S. (1996) Evidence based medicine: what it is and what it isn't. British Medical Journal 312: 71–72.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network (SIGN). (1995) Royal College of Physicians, Edinburgh.Google Scholar