ArticleOtolaryngology--head and neck surgery : official journal of American Academy of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery2016
Does an Otolaryngology-Specific Database Have Added Value? A Comparative Feasibility Analysis.
Article in Otolaryngology--head and neck surgery : official journal of American Academy of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed, 9 citations in OpenAlex.
- CHEER National Study of Chronic Rhinosinusitis Practice Patterns: Disease Comorbidities and Factors Associated with Surgery.Otolaryngology--head and neck surgery : official journal of American Academy of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery · 2017Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors at 8 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
Abstract
objectivesThere are multiple nationally representative databases that support epidemiologic and outcomes research, and it is unknown whether an otolaryngology-specific resource would prove indispensable or superfluous. Therefore, our objective was to determine the feasibility of analyses in the National Ambulatory Medical Care Survey (NAMCS) and National Hospital Ambulatory Medical Care Survey (NHAMCS) databases as compared with the otolaryngology-specific Creating Healthcare Excellence through Education and Research (CHEER) database. STUDY
designParallel analyses in 2 data sets.
settingAmbulatory visits in the United States. SUBJECTS AND
methodsTo test a fixed hypothesis that could be directly compared between data sets, we focused on a condition with expected prevalence high enough to substantiate availability in both. This query also encompassed a broad span of diagnoses to sample the breadth of available information. Specifically, we compared an assessment of suspected risk factors for sensorineural hearing loss in subjects 0 to 21 years of age, according to a predetermined protocol. We also assessed the feasibility of 6 additional diagnostic queries among all age groups.
resultsIn the NAMCS/NHAMCS data set, the number of measured observations was not sufficient to support reliable numeric conclusions (percentage standard error among risk factors: 38.6-92.1). Analysis of the CHEER database demonstrated that age, sex, meningitis, and cytomegalovirus were statistically significant factors associated with pediatric sensorineural hearing loss (P < .01). Among the 6 additional diagnostic queries assessed, NAMCS/NHAMCS usage was also infeasible; the CHEER database contained 1585 to 212,521 more observations per annum.
conclusionAn otolaryngology-specific database has added utility when compared with already available national ambulatory databases.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.