Levels of evidence in otolaryngology journals

Abstract

By defining the current levels of evidence in otolaryngology journals, this overview should help guide future efforts.

Functional outcomes after radiotherapy or laser surgery in early glottic carcinoma: A systematic review

“…Such limitations influenced the evidence level of included studies, all of which were assigned to level 4. This level, however, is in accord with otolaryngology articles generally: of 1924 clinical research articles, 63% was assigned to level 4, with papers on therapy being assigned to the lowest levels 37…”

“…Level of evidence was graded using definitions that Wasserman et al37 adapted for otolaryngology. These definitions are based on standards advocated by the Oxford Centre of Evidence‐based Medicine,38 and largely depend on study design.…”

Challenges We Must Confront

“…In fact, if you looked at the level of evidence, only 14% were prospectively designed clinical trials. A subsequent report suggests we have improved, but there remains room for improvement 2 …”

Evidence and evidence gaps in therapies of nasal obstruction and rhinosinusitis

“…In 2006, Wasserman and co-workers analysed how studies and evidence levels in reputable ENT-specific journals developed between 1993 and 2003 [21]. They investigated the original articles of 1993, 1998, and 2003 published in the four most important ENT-specific journals (Annals of Otology, Rhinology, and Laryngology; Archives of Otolaryngology – Head & Neck Surgery; The Laryngoscope; Otolaryngology – Head and Neck Surgery).…”