Evidence-Based Medicine in Otolaryngology Part 16: Qualitative and Quantitative Methods-Contrasting and Complementary Approaches.

Qualitative methods have been increasingly applied in our literature, providing richness to data and incorporating the nuances of patient and family perspectives. These qualitative research techniques provide breadth and depth beyond what can be gleaned through quantitative methods alone. When both quantitative and qualitative approaches are coupled, their findings provide complementary information which can further substantiate study conclusions. We thus aim to provide insight into qualitative and quantitative methods in comparison and contrast to each other, as well as guidance on when each approach is most apt. In relation, we also describe mixed methods and the theory supporting their framework. In doing so, we provide the foundation for an ensuing, more detailed exposition of qualitative methods.

Evidence-Based Medicine in Otolaryngology Part 14: Falsehood and Bias.

OBJECTIVE: Falsehood and bias can have tangible effects, whether related to the "hoax" of Corona virus disease/COVID-19 or the impact of personal protective equipment in city-wide news. The spread of false information requires the diversion of time and resources into rebolstering the truth. Our objective is thus to elucidate types of bias that may influence our daily work, along with ways to mitigate them. DATA SOURCES: Publications are included which delineate specific aspects of bias or address how to preempt, mitigate, or correct bias, whether conscious or unconscious. REVIEW METHODS: We discuss: (1) the background and rationale for proactively considering potential sources of bias, (2) relevant definitions and concepts, (3) potential means to limit effects of inaccurate data sources, and (4) evolving frontiers in the management of bias. In doing so, we review epidemiological concepts and susceptibility to bias within study designs, including database studies, observational studies, randomized controlled trials (RCTs), systematic reviews, and meta-analyses. We additionally discuss concepts such as the difference between disinformation and misinformation, differential or nondifferential misclassification, bias toward a null result, and unconscious bias, among others. CONCLUSION: We have the means to mitigate sources of potential bias in database studies, observational studies, RCTs, and systematic reviews, beginning with education and awareness. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: False information may spread faster than true information, so it is beneficial to understand potential sources of falsehood we face, in order to safeguard our daily impressions and decisions. Awareness of potential sources of falsehood and bias forms the foundation for accuracy in our everyday work.