Publications on Clinical Research in Otolaryngology–A Systematic Analysis of Leading Journals in 2010

Background: We wanted to asses and characterize the volume of Otolaryngology publications on clinical research, published in major journals.Methods and Material: To assess volume and study type of clinical research in Otolaryngology we performed a literature search in high impact factor journals. We included 10 high impact factor Otolaryngology journals and 20 high impact factor medical journals outside this field (2011). We extracted original publications and systematic reviews from 2010. Publications were classified according to their research question, that is therapy, diagnosis, prognosis or etiology.Results: From Otolaryngology journals (impact factor 1.8 to 2.8) we identified 694 (46%) publications on original observations and 27 (2%) systematic reviews. From selected medical journals (impact factor 6.0 to 101.8) 122 (2%) publications related to Otolaryngology, 102 (83%) were on original observations and 2 (0.04%) systematic reviews. The most common category was therapy (40%).Conclusion: Half of publications in Otolaryngology concerns clinical research, which is higher than other specialties. In medical journals outside the field of Otolaryngology, a small proportion (2%) of publications is related to Otolaryngology. Striking is that systematic reviews, which are considered high level evidence, make up for only 2% of publications. We must ensure an increase of clinical research for optimizing medical practice

The "evidence-based practice inventory" : reliability and validity was demonstrated for a novel instrument to identify barriers and facilitators for Evidence Based Practice in health care

OBJECTIVES: To design and validate a practical questionnaire for clinicians, to identify barriers and facilitators for evidence-based practice (EBP), that is, the use of research evidence in patient care. The inventory is ultimately intended for departments to assess local conditions for EBP, to aim and evaluate efforts at improving or maximizing EBP. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: We derived candidate items from existing EBP scales, psychology, and behavioral economics. In an online Delphi study, 537 international expert clinicians, researchers, teachers, and policymakers interested in EBP identified items with sufficient face and content validity. We piloted and validated the resulting draft inventory among 127 clinicians from various specialties and career stages. RESULTS: The Delphi study started with 114 items and resulted in a draft inventory with 29 items in five dimensions. During the pilot, the inventory was easy to complete within 15 minutes and the items showed sufficient response variation. In four of five dimensions, test-retest reliability was substantial to almost perfect and the power to discriminate between groups with different expertise was adequate, whereas internal consistency showed that the items generally measured the same construct. On the basis of internal consistency and factor analysis, we excluded three items. The final EBP inventory consists of 26 items in five dimensions: decision making, subjective norm, attitude, perceived behavior control, and intention and behavior. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION: The EBP inventory was developed with support of EBP experts and validated among various academic clinicians. It shows adequate face and content validity, internal consistency, test-retest reliability, discriminative power, and completion will take <15 minutes. We recommend further evaluation of its value in field trials