• Home
  • Practice Focus
    • Facial Plastic/Reconstructive
    • Head and Neck
    • Laryngology
    • Otology/Neurotology
    • Pediatric
    • Rhinology
    • Sleep Medicine
    • How I Do It
    • TRIO Best Practices
  • Business of Medicine
    • Health Policy
    • Legal Matters
    • Practice Management
    • Tech Talk
    • AI
  • Literature Reviews
    • Facial Plastic/Reconstructive
    • Head and Neck
    • Laryngology
    • Otology/Neurotology
    • Pediatric
    • Rhinology
    • Sleep Medicine
  • Career
    • Medical Education
    • Professional Development
    • Resident Focus
  • ENT Perspectives
    • ENT Expressions
    • Everyday Ethics
    • From TRIO
    • The Great Debate
    • Letter From the Editor
    • Rx: Wellness
    • The Voice
    • Viewpoint
  • TRIO Resources
    • Triological Society
    • The Laryngoscope
    • Laryngoscope Investigative Otolaryngology
    • TRIO Combined Sections Meetings
    • COSM
    • Related Otolaryngology Events
  • Search

Randomized Trials in Head Neck are Statistically Nonrobust

by ENTtoday • August 7, 2018

  • Tweet
  • Click to email a link to a friend (Opens in new window) Email
Print-Friendly Version

Study design: Potential articles were identified in PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane without publication date restrictions.

You Might Also Like

  • Patients in Head and Neck Cancer Trials Don’t Reflect Clinical Practice
  • Randomized Trial Shows No Benefit of Intra-Arterial Chemoradiation Delivery in Head and Neck Cancer
  • How to Ensure Surgical Head and Neck Clinical Trials Are Beneficial to Patients
  • Spin Common in Otolaryngology RCT Abstracts
Explore This Issue
August 2018

Synopsis: Two reviewers independently screened eligible RCTs reporting at least one dichotomous and statistically significant outcome. The data from each trial were extracted and the FI scores were calculated. Associations between trial characteristics and FI were determined.

In total, 27 articles were identified. The median sample size was 67.5 (interquartile range [IQR] = 42–143) and the median number of events per trial was eight (IQR = 2.25–18.25). The median FI score was one (IQR = 0–2.5), meaning that changing one patient from a nonevent to an event in the treatment arm would change the result to a statistically nonsignificant result, or P > .05. The FI score was less than the number of patients lost to follow-up in 71% of cases. The FI score was found to be moderately correlated with P value (ρ = −0.52, P = .007) and with journal impact factor (ρ = 0.49, P = .009) on univariable analysis. On multivariable analysis, only the P value was found to be a predictor of FI score (P = .001).

Citation: Noel CW, McMullen C, Yao C, Monteiro E, et al. The fragility of statistically significant findings from randomized trials in head and neck surgery [published online ahead of print April 23, 2018]. Laryngoscope. doi: 10.1002/lary.27183.

Pages: 1 2 | Single Page

Filed Under: Head and Neck, Literature Reviews Tagged With: head and neck research, randomized trialsIssue: August 2018

You Might Also Like:

  • Patients in Head and Neck Cancer Trials Don’t Reflect Clinical Practice
  • Randomized Trial Shows No Benefit of Intra-Arterial Chemoradiation Delivery in Head and Neck Cancer
  • How to Ensure Surgical Head and Neck Clinical Trials Are Beneficial to Patients
  • Spin Common in Otolaryngology RCT Abstracts

The Triological SocietyENTtoday is a publication of The Triological Society.

Polls

Have you served as an expert witness in a case that’s gone to trial?

View Results

Loading ... Loading ...
  • Polls Archive

Top Articles for Residents

  • Resident Pearls: Pediatric Otolaryngologists Share Tips for Safer, Smarter Tonsillectomies
  • A Letter to My Younger Self: Making Deliberate Changes Can Help Improve the Sense of Belonging
  • ENTtoday Welcomes Resident Editorial Board Members
  • Applications Open for Resident Members of ENTtoday Edit Board
  • How To Provide Helpful Feedback To Residents
  • Popular this Week
  • Most Popular
  • Most Recent
    • The Dramatic Rise in Tongue Tie and Lip Tie Treatment

    • Rating Laryngopharyngeal Reflux Severity: How Do Two Common Instruments Compare?

    • Empty Nose Syndrome: Physiological, Psychological, or Perhaps a Little of Both?

    • Otolaryngologists Are Still Debating the Effectiveness of Tongue Tie Treatment

    • History of the Laryngoscope

    • The Dramatic Rise in Tongue Tie and Lip Tie Treatment

    • Rating Laryngopharyngeal Reflux Severity: How Do Two Common Instruments Compare?

    • Is Middle Ear Pressure Affected by Continuous Positive Airway Pressure Use?

    • Otolaryngologists Are Still Debating the Effectiveness of Tongue Tie Treatment

    • Keeping Watch for Skin Cancers on the Head and Neck

    • Resident Pearls: Pediatric Otolaryngologists Share Tips for Safer, Smarter Tonsillectomies
    • Composition and Priorities of Multidisciplinary Pediatric Thyroid Programs: A Consensus Statement
    • Artificial Intelligence as Author: Can Scientific Reviewers Recognize GPT- 4o–Generated Manuscripts?
    • Self-Administered Taste Testing Without Water: Normative Data for the 53-Item WETT
    • Long-Term Particulate Matter Exposure May Increase Risk of Chronic Rhinosinusitis with Nasal Polyposis: Results from an Exposure-Matched Study

Follow Us

  • Contact Us
  • About Us
  • Advertise
  • The Triological Society
  • The Laryngoscope
  • Laryngoscope Investigative Otolaryngology
  • Privacy Policy
  • Terms of Use
  • Cookies

Wiley

Copyright © 2025 by John Wiley & Sons, Inc. All rights reserved, including rights for text and data mining and training of artificial technologies or similar technologies. ISSN 1559-4939