Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gvvz8 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-25T04:20:01.491Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

A qualitative assessment of randomized controlled trials in otolaryngology

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  29 June 2007

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

Abstract

In 1996 the CONSORT statement made recommendations on the strict reporting of randomized controlled trials (RCT). This will facilitate the future assessment of such trials and will highlight those trials that have been performed suboptimally and whose results may be biased.

We have devised a scoring system, based on CONSORT, to assess RCT quality and by reading each original paper in full we have now assessed the quality of trials published from 1966 to 1995.

The mean score for trials identified was 7.3 out of a maximum 12 points. No one journal was significantly better than the others. Trials in rhinology are reported better than head and neck oncology trials (mean scores 7.6 and 6.5 respectively). The past 30 years has not seen an improvement in the quality of the trials.

The reporting of RCTs in the ENT literature is poor. CONSORT guidelines now exist and trialists are encouraged to adopt them when conducting future clinical trials.

Keywords

Clinical trialsReference standardsOtolaryngology
Type
Main Articles
Information
The Journal of Laryngology & Otology , Volume 112 , Issue 5 , May 1998 , pp. 460 - 463
Copyright
Copyright © JLO (1984) Limited 1998

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.)

References

Ah-See, K. W., Molony, N. C., Maran, A G. D. (1997) Trends in randomized controlled trials in ENT: a 30 year review. Journal of Laryngology and Otology 111: 611–613.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
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
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
Rosenfeld, R. M., Rockette, H. E. (1991) Biostatistics in Otolaryngology journals. Archives of Otolaryngology – Head and Neck Surgery 117: 1172–1176.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
SIGN, Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network (SIGN). (1995) The Royal College of Physicians, Queen Street, Edinburgh.Google Scholar
Solomon, M. J., Laxamana, A., Devore, L., McLeod, R. S. (1994) Randomized controlled trials in surgery. Surgery 115(6): 707–712.Google ScholarPubMed