Recent Randomized Controlled Trials in Otolaryngology. (March 2015)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Banglawala, Sarfaraz M.; Lawrence, Lauren A.; Franko-Tobin, Emily; Soler, Zachary M.; Schlosser, Rodney J.; Ioannidis, John
• Is Part Of: Otolaryngology--head and neck surgery. Volume 152:Number 3(2015:Mar.)
• Page Start: 418
• Page End: 423
• Publication Date: 2015-03
• Subjects: evidence-based medicine -- randomized control trial -- clinical trial -- quality of evidence -- otolaryngology journals; Head -- Surgery -- Periodicals; Neck -- Surgery -- Periodicals; Otolaryngology -- Periodicals; 617.51
• DOI: 10.1177/0194599814563518
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 0194-5998

Abstract

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.