Is there an evidence base for the practice of ENT surgery?
In order to assess the strength of the 'evidence base' for the practice of otolaryngology a review of recent journal articles was undertaken. A review of all articles published during the period 1990-1994 in five major general otolaryngology journals was performed. The articles were classified according to a standardized scheme from the abstract or, if necessary, the full paper. Papers were grouped into observational studies (descriptive or analytical, hypothesis-testing), controlled trials, randomized controlled trials, audits, non-clinical and others. One true meta-analysis was found. Randomized controlled trials comprised 0.7%-4% of articles across the journals studied; other controlled trials comprised 0.8-2%; and other analytical studies 7.6-21.9%. Very few true audits were seen. Descriptive studies were by far the commonest type of paper seen. This literature review suggests there is a poor evidence base for our specialty if one regards randomized controlled trials as the gold standard.
Maran
A G
AG
Department of Otolaryngology, Royal Infirmary, Edinburgh, UK.
Molony
N C
NC
Armstrong
M W
MW
Ah-See
K
K
D000818:Animals; D015331:Cohort Studies; D018849:Controlled Clinical Trials as Topic; D003430:Cross-Sectional Studies; D019317:Evidence-Based Medicine; D006801:Humans; D008485:Medical Audit; D013677:Medical Laboratory Science; D008499:Medical Records; D015201:Meta-Analysis as Topic; D010036:Otolaryngology; D010038:Otorhinolaryngologic Diseases / Q000601:surgery*; D010506:Periodicals as Topic; D011446:Prospective Studies; D016032:Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; D012189:Retrospective Studies