Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29804130›Full record

ArticleEuropean archives of oto-rhino-laryngology : official journal of the European Federation of Oto-Rhino-Laryngological Societies (EUFOS) : affiliated with the German Society for Oto-Rhino-Laryngology - Head and Neck Surgery2018

ENT audit and research in the era of trainee collaboratives.

Matthew E Smith, John Hardman, Matthew Ellis, Richard J Williams, INTEGRATE, The UK National ENT Trainee Research Network

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in European archives of oto-rhino-laryngology : official journal of the European Federation of Oto-Rhino-Laryngological Societies (EUFOS) : affiliated with the German Society for Oto-Rhino-Laryngology - Head and Neck Surgery, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Matthew E SmithClinical Research Associate and Specialty Registrar in ENT, Addenbrooke's Hospital, Cambridge, UK. m.e.smith@doctors.org.uk.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-8147-1549
John HardmanSpecialty Registrar in ENT, Royal Marsden Hospital, London, UK.
Matthew EllisSpecialty Registrar in ENT, Freeman Hospital, Newcastle, UK.
Richard J WilliamsSpecialty Registrar in ENT, Institute of Naval Medicine, Gosport, UK.
INTEGRATE, The UK National ENT Trainee Research Network

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Large surgical audits and research projects are complex and costly to deliver, but increasingly surgical trainees are delivering these projects within formal collaboratives and research networks. Surgical trainee collaboratives are now recognised as a valuable part of the research infrastructure, with many perceived benefits for both the trainees and the wider surgical speciality. In this article, we describe the activity of ENT trainee research collaboratives within the UK, and summarise how INTEGRATE, the UK National ENT Trainee Research Network, successfully delivered a national audit of epistaxis management. The prospective audit collected high-quality data from 1826 individuals, representing 94% of all cases that met the inclusion criteria at the 113 participating sites over the 30-day audit period. It is hoped that the audit has provided a template for subsequent high-quality and cost-effective national studies, and we discuss the future possibilities for ENT trainee research collaboratives.

Indexed as

Cooperative BehaviorEpistaxisHumansMedical AuditOtolaryngologyProspective StudiesAuditClinical trialResearchSurgical training

Identifiers

PMID29804130
PMCPMC5992239

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.