The Richard J. Bellucci, MD, Resident Research Award went to Rosh K.V. Sethi, MD, MPH, chief resident in otolaryngology at Massachusetts Eye and Ear. Dr. Sethi and his team conducted a retrospective review of opioid use among 155 patients after ESS and found that that 95% of patients were prescribed opioids—an average of 15.6 tablets per patient—and 91% filled the prescription. But 71% said at first follow-up that they’d actually taken no opioids. Tablets prescribed were higher among those undergoing primary rather than revision surgery and among those with splints placed. Predictors of opioid use included concurrent turbinate reduction and concurrent septoplasty.
Triological Society Gathers in Coronado
Editors offer Tips for peer review
Are you interested in becoming a reviewer or wondering how to be a better peer reviewer? Michael Stewart, MD, MPH, editor-in-chief of The Laryngoscope, and Mark Courey, MD, associate editor, offered tips in a session:
- Assess the paper in context with other published literature. Even if a paper is rigorous and done with sound methodology, it should not be published if it adds nothing new to the literature.
- Consider whether revisions are possible or practical.
- Determine whether the conclusions are supported by the data.
- Assess the statistics and methodology, but ask for help from a statistician if needed.
- Don’t be afraid to reject a submission right away, Dr. Stewart said. “If you think the authors have to re-do their data analysis or if they need more data, in my mind, that’s an automatic rejection.”
- Look for a power analysis and be suspect of underpowered studies.
- “Negative” studies—with no difference between groups—can be important to publish.
- Don’t say yes and then not complete your review. If you will not be able to complete the review, please say no initially.
- Finish your review on time.
- Be fair—and not harsh or sarcastic.
- Don’t violate the confidentiality of peer review.