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.1 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.