Robert Chessman1, Tawakir Kamani2, John P Birchall3, Johanna G Barry4, Matija Daniel3. 1. Nottingham University Hospitals, UK. Electronic address: robert.chessman@nhs.net. 2. Nottingham University Hospitals, UK. 3. Nottingham University Hospitals, UK; Otology and Hearing Group, The University of Nottingham, UK. 4. Nottingham University Hospitals, UK; MRC Institute of Hearing Research Clinical Section, The University of Nottingham, UK.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Many different OME treatment trials have been published using different outcomes measures to evaluate the success of particular interventions. We set out to identify the variation in reporting of outcome measures in OME trials that exists at present. This has been achieved by reviewing published trials to determine which outcome measures have been reported. METHOD: The literature review was carried out using PUBMED database (1980 to 2013). Data were collected on the treatment outcomes reported, with particular focus on the methods of assessment and the number of treatment outcomes used in each study. RESULTS: The 171 studies identified used 12 broad treatment outcome measures. The most common outcome measure was OME resolution (48%) followed by hearing level (36%). Only 95 studies used a single outcome measure, with 76 studies using between 2 and 4 outcome measures. The method of assessment varied between studies that used the same treatment outcome measures. CONCLUSION: OME treatment trials report a wide range of measures and comparison across studies is thus difficult. Establishing a core set of outcome measures to be reported by all trials in the future could be useful, and would allow comprehensive comparison of different studies and minimise potential for reporting bias.
INTRODUCTION: Many different OME treatment trials have been published using different outcomes measures to evaluate the success of particular interventions. We set out to identify the variation in reporting of outcome measures in OME trials that exists at present. This has been achieved by reviewing published trials to determine which outcome measures have been reported. METHOD: The literature review was carried out using PUBMED database (1980 to 2013). Data were collected on the treatment outcomes reported, with particular focus on the methods of assessment and the number of treatment outcomes used in each study. RESULTS: The 171 studies identified used 12 broad treatment outcome measures. The most common outcome measure was OME resolution (48%) followed by hearing level (36%). Only 95 studies used a single outcome measure, with 76 studies using between 2 and 4 outcome measures. The method of assessment varied between studies that used the same treatment outcome measures. CONCLUSION: OME treatment trials report a wide range of measures and comparison across studies is thus difficult. Establishing a core set of outcome measures to be reported by all trials in the future could be useful, and would allow comprehensive comparison of different studies and minimise potential for reporting bias.
Authors: Nicola L Harman; Iain A Bruce; Peter Callery; Stephanie Tierney; Mohammad Owaise Sharif; Kevin O'Brien; Paula R Williamson Journal: Trials Date: 2013-03-12 Impact factor: 2.279
Authors: Elizabeth Gargon; Binu Gurung; Nancy Medley; Doug G Altman; Jane M Blazeby; Mike Clarke; Paula R Williamson Journal: PLoS One Date: 2014-06-16 Impact factor: 3.240