Ten years of ENT Scotland meetings: an appraisal of the publication rates of trainee-presented scientific papers.

OBJECTIVE: The ENT Scotland society (formerly known as the Scottish Otolaryngological Society) has two meetings a year and accepts oral presentations from trainees. This study aimed to identify publication rates from these meetings. METHODS: Abstracts of the presentations are published in The Journal of Laryngology and Otology. A structured search on PubMed and Google Scholar was undertaken to identify which presentations from the 2005 to 2014 meetings have been published. RESULTS: Of the 145 abstracts found, 60.7 per cent were presenting clinical research and 44.1 per cent were related to the head and neck subspecialty. Seventy-three abstracts (50.3 per cent) were associated with publication as a peer-reviewed article; otology papers were more likely to be published than those focusing on other subspecialties (64.3 per cent, p = 0.036). No correlation was found between publication and other factors. CONCLUSION: Presentations at the ENT Scotland meetings undergo unbiased peer review and are as likely to be published as those of other conferences.

Intranasal packs and haemostatic agents for the management of adult epistaxis: systematic review.

BACKGROUND: The mainstay of management of epistaxis refractory to first aid and cautery is intranasal packing. This review aimed to identify evidence surrounding nasal pack use. METHOD: A systematic review of the literature was performed using standardised methodology. RESULTS: Twenty-seven eligible articles were identified relating to non-dissolvable packs and nine to dissolvable packs. Nasal packing appears to be more effective when applied by trained professionals. For non-dissolvable packs, the re-bleed rates for Rapid Rhino and Merocel were similar, but were higher with bismuth iodoform paraffin paste packing. Rapid Rhino packs were the most tolerated non-dissolvable packs. Evidence indicates that 96 per cent of re-bleeding occurs within the first 4 hours after nasal pack removal. Limited evidence suggests that dissolvable packs are effective and well tolerated by patients. There was a lack of evidence relating to: the duration of pack use, the economic effects of pack choice and the appropriate care setting for non-dissolvable packs. CONCLUSION: Rapid Rhino packs are the best tolerated, with efficacy equivalent to nasal tampons. FloSeal is easy to use, causes less discomfort and may be superior to Merocel in anterior epistaxis cases. There is no strong evidence to support prophylactic antibiotic use.

The BeSMART (Best Supportive Management for Adults Referred with Tonsillopharyngitis) multicentre observational study.

Introduction Tonsillopharyngitis is the most common ear, nose and throat emergency admission, with 80,000 episodes recorded in England in 2015-2016. Despite this, there is a paucity of evidence addressing the supportive management of tonsillopharyngitis in inpatients. The aim of this retrospective multicentre observational study was to consider the Best Supportive Management for Adults Referred with Tonsillopharyngitis (BeSMART) in the inpatient setting, and to establish any associations between practice and outcomes. Methods Seven hospitals in North West England and North East Scotland participated in the study. Overall, 236 adult patients admitted with tonsillopharyngitis were included. The main outcome measures were interval to return to soft diet, length of stay (LOS), pain scores and readmissions. Results Women were more likely to seek professional help before presenting to secondary care (p=0.04). Patients admitted at the weekend were more likely to have a shorter LOS (p=0.03). There was no relationship between day of admission and seniority or specialty of the doctor initially seen. Prescription of corticosteroid, analgesia and a higher initial intravenous fluid infusion rate were not related to a shorter LOS. Conclusions This study is the first to yield valuable insights into the inpatient management of tonsillopharyngitis. This work represents part of an ongoing project to establish the evidence for common medical interventions for sore throat. Patient and professional surveys as well as a prospective interventional study are planned for the future.

An analysis of the fate of 917 manuscripts rejected from Clinical Otolaryngology.

OBJECTIVES: The fate of all manuscripts rejected from the journal Clinical Otolaryngology (CO) over a three-year period was investigated. The aim was to review publication rate, delay and the impact factors of the journals that the papers went on to be published in. DESIGN: In total, 917 papers were rejected from CO between 2011 and 2013. The fate of these manuscripts was determined by searching for the corresponding author's surname, and if necessary keywords from the manuscript title, in both PubMed and Google Scholar. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The main outcome measures recorded were as follows: the subsequent publication of the article, delay to publication and journal of publication. RESULTS: In all, 511 papers were subsequently published in journals, representing 55.7% of all rejected manuscripts. The average delay was 15.1 months (standard deviation [sd] = 8.8). The impact factor of CO was found to be higher than the average of the journals that accepted the rejected manuscripts in all 3 years. Only 41 (8%) papers were published in journals with a higher impact factor than CO. Of all subsequently accepted manuscripts, 60 (11.7%) were found only on Google Scholar (and not on PubMed). CONCLUSIONS: Rejection from CO certainly does not prevent subsequent publication, although the papers tend to be published after a lengthy delay and in journals with a lower impact factor than CO. When performing literature searches, it is important to search more than one database to ensure as many of the relevant articles are found as possible.

A re-appraisal of publication rates of scientific papers presented at the Otorhinolaryngology Research Society meetings.

OBJECTIVES: To review the rate of publication of papers in peer-reviewed journals after oral presentations at the Otorhinolaryngology Research Society meetings between 1996 and 2013 and to compare trends with the previous review (1979-1995). DESIGN: Literature review. SETTING: Merseyside ENT Research Collaborative. PARTICIPANTS: The abstracts of presentations at Otorhinolaryngology Research Society meetings are published in Clinical Otolaryngology. A structured search of PubMed was undertaken to identify published Otorhinolaryngology Research Society presentations. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Publication rates. RESULTS: A total of 460 abstracts were identified. The interobserver reliability among reviewers was 98%. Of the total, 259 (56.3%) abstracts were published in peer-reviewed journals. The average time from Otorhinolaryngology Research Society presentation to publication was 27.7 months (median 23), which was not significantly different from the previous review. Publication by subspeciality was as follows: head and neck (45.6%), otology (30.5%), rhinology (22%) and others (1.9%). Most published Otorhinolaryngology Research Society presentations were published in Clinical Otolaryngology (22.4%), followed by the Journal of Laryngology and Otology (8.1%) and the Laryngoscope (7.3%). Clinical research was the most common category of abstracts being presented at Otorhinolaryngology Research Society meetings, followed by laboratory-based research. Over half (56.5%) of laboratory research presented were head and neck themed, while otology and rhinology predominated clinical research presentations. Over half (52.1%) of Otorhinolaryngology Research Society abstracts originated from units in the North of England. Bristol presented the most abstracts (30.1%), followed by Newcastle (25.1%). CONCLUSIONS: The publication rate of Otorhinolaryngology Research Society presentations remains high and many are subsequently published in high-impact factor otolaryngology journals. More Otorhinolaryngology Research Society presentations are now published in American and European journals.

Laryngopharyngeal reflux and primary snoring: a pilot case-control study.

STUDY OBJECTIVES: Laryngopharyngeal reflux has been implicated as a causative factor in the aetiology of sleep related breathing disorders. However there are no reports on the association of this disorder and primary snoring in the absence of obstructive sleep apnoea. This study was undertaken to investigate any link between primary snoring and the presence of laryngopharyngeal reflux. METHODS: A matched case-control study was performed in a district general Ear Nose Throat outpatient population in the United Kingdom. Twenty six patients referred for snoring without sleep apnoea (cases) were individually matched for gender, body mass index and age, to 26 patients referred for other otorhinolaryngological complaints (controls). Snoring was not an exclusion criterion for the controls. Exclusion criteria for both groups were previous referral or treatment for snoring and/or sleep apnoea, nasal obstruction symptoms (as a potential cause of snoring), and known history of gastrooesophageal reflux with medical treatment longer than two months. The main outcome measure was prevalence of laryngopharyngeal reflux based on the Reflux Symptom Index score. RESULTS: Patients seeking medical advice for primary snoring are fourteen times more likely to report Reflux Symptom Index scores of more than 13 than controls. CONCLUSIONS: Laryngopharyngeal reflux may also be implicated in the pathogenesis of primary snoring in the absence of sleep apnoea. This constitutes 3b level of evidence.

Parotid actinomycosis mimicking metastatic lymphadenopathy.

We present a patient with actinomycosis of the parotid, as confirmed by histology, and discuss the challenges involved when clinical and radiological findings are highly indicative of metastatic malignancy. Early treatment with antibiotics is indicated infungating or infected masses and exclusion of malignancy by histology is often needed.