- The document summarizes and provides critical comments on a research article published in the European Annals of Otorhinolaryngology Head and Neck diseases. - The research article compared the subjective outcomes of septoplasty with or without turbinoplasty. It was well-written with a clear title, structured abstract, appropriate tables and figures, and conclusions supported by results. - Some opportunities for improvement were noted such as providing author contact details for both correspondence and non-corresponding authors, using consistent terms between the table and text, and presenting results in alternative formats like line graphs.

1. CRITICAL
COMMENTS
DR MAHADEV DEUJA
ENT-HNS RESIDENT 1ST YEAR
TUTH, IOM
2078/3/29, TUESDAY

2. About journal
• EuropeanAnnals of Otorhinolaryngology
Head and Neck diseases
• Oldest otorhynology journal of Europe.
• 2020
• https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anorl.2020.01.02
4
• Impact factor- 2.080
Published
in a reputed
journal

3. “About 60% of reviewers criticisms pertain to
the quality of the writing or tables and graphs;
and about 40% pertain to the quality of the
scientific work.”
Robert Iles. Guidebook to better medical
writing.

4. TITLE
• Clear , concise and self explainatory
• 14 words with strong verbs
• Well defined terms
• No use abbrevations

5. ALTERNATE
TITLE
• Randomized control trial to compare subjective outcomes of
septoplasty with or without turbinoplasty.

6. About author
• Authors address and email of
correspondence- included
• Email address- only of R.Samerei
• ∗Corresponding author at: Department
of Otolaryngology, Urmia University of
Medical Sciences, Urmia, 57147-83734, Iran.
• E-mail address: reza.samarei@gmail.com
(R. Samarei).

7. About author • Better if included both- reviewer, editor
and readers would have easy access
• ∗Corresponding author at: Department
of Otolaryngology, Urmia University of
Medical Sciences, Urmia, 57147-83734, Iran.
• E-mail address: reza.samarei@gmail.com
(R. Samarei).

8. Abstract
Scanning

9. Abstract
Well structured- 4 sub headings
• Backgrounds and aims
• Quick summary of key
materials and methods
• Key results with supporting
data
• Conclusion- specific

10. Abstract
• Concise
• 241 words
(recommended: 100-300
words)
• Easy to read

11. Key words
5 key words (recommended:
3-5 words)

12. Reviewing the
table
Table- Foundation of study.
Contains – 2 table- 2 sets of
information.

13. Table 1 title
• Presented professionally-
• 3 horizontal lines: 1 above and 1 below
the column headings, and 1 below the
data.
• Without grid line.

14. Table 1 title
• Variables -put on straight lines.
• Looks self explanatory-
• Groups are comparable.
• Abrevatation full form – mentioned at foot
note

15. Table 1 title
• Loose terms- baseline
• Better to use same key word both in table
title and text.

16. Table 1 title
• Better table 1 title
• Preoperative clinical and demographic
characteristics of study arms.

17. Table 1 title
• Sentence level editing
• Demographic characteristics,
preoperative nasal symptoms, and
baseline subjective scores between two
groups were comparable. (15 word)
Avoid negatives
(20 words)

18. Table-1
• Age – months / years
• Better to use units
Tables should stand alone

19. Scanning
through table 2

20. Scanning
through
table 2
Shows study period NOSE
and VAS score of two
groups.

21. Figure -2
Tells the same story as of
table-2
Could have used either
table 2 or this bar diagram
Better to avoid repetition

22. Line graph
Same data (table2 and fig2)
can be presented in a better
way.
NOSE: Nasal Obstruction Symptom Evaluation; VAS: Visual analog scale.

23. Study flow
chart
• Contains brief title and study details
• Beautifully placed.

24. Cont..
• Study design – nicely
presented

25. Cont.. • Duration of follow up- nicely
shown

26. Cont..
• Better and self sufficient
• Readers don't have to go through the
all the methodology section to find out
this small information
Outcomes measured
using NOSE and
VAS score

27. Introduction
• Brief
• Two paragraph (recommended :
2-5)

28. Introduction
• Followed the standard format of :
known-->unknown-->study
purpose?
• Gaps in the literature – clearly
mentioned.

29. Materials
and methods
Written in 5 sub headings
Study period
Study design
Study place
Inclusion criteria

30. Materials
and method
Exclusion criteria- clearly
mentioned

31. Materials
and method
Ethical consideration-
informed consent taken
Approval taken

32. Materials
and method
• Diagnosis -By
otorhinolaryngologist
• Tools - Anterior rhinoscopy +
CT imaging
• 3 grades of turbinate
hypertrophy - only 2 and 3
included.

33. Materials
and method
• Randomized – 2 groups
• Septoplasty (group A) –
elaborated

34. Materials
and method
Turbinoplasty (group B)-
well elaborated

35. Materials
and method
Post operative assessment
- 6 , 12, 24 and 48 months

36. Materials
and method
Nasal symptoms evaluated
-NOSE
-VAS
Questionnaire were used

37. Materials
and method
• Statistical method of
analysis
• Student t-test, paired
t- test, chi-square
test.

38. Results
• Summarizes the raw data
• Cite figure and table supporting
the data.

39. Discussions
• Finding- clearly written in first
paragraph.
• Writing is clear and to the point.
• Addressed the limitations clearly.

40. Discussions
• Addresses the objective
• Compared results to other major studies – Gandomi et al studies., deveseren et
al studies.
• Both having similar and contrasting findings.
• Logical reasoning for contrasting results – given.
• Strength of study- mentioned ( exclusion criteria, prospective
study design, long follow up periods, triple blinding...)
• Limitations of study- mentioned ( single surgeon, single center)

41. Conclusions
•Very concise
•Stated the finding clearly
Turbinate reduction surgery should be
conducted along with septoplasty to
achieve better results in cases
suffering from deviated nasal septum
with hypertrophied inferior turbinate.

42. Refrences
Vancouver system
44Journal articles

43. Literature
review

44. Title

45. • Published in indian journal of otolaryngology and
head and neck surgery.
• On : 15 December 2015
• DOI 10.1007/s12070-015-0928-2
• Impact factor- ?

46. Similarities
• Aims and objective
• To compare symptomatic improvement following septoplasty with or without
turbinoplasty.
• Prospective study design
• Study center- single center
• Inclusion criteria- ≥ 18 years old + chronic nasal obstruction due to unilateral
DNS with a contralateral hypertrophied inferior turbinate.

47. Similarities
• Grading of inferior turbinate hypertrophy
• Randomization
• Operative intervention
• Blinding-Findings-septoplasty with inferior turbinoplasty has the better
results.

48. Differences
• Sample size- smaller (60)
• Inclusion criteria- all grade of inferior turbinate hypertrophy
• Operative intervention- different surgeons, in detail
• Symptom assessment- only with NOSE.

49. Differences
• Symptom wise NOSE score
was studied.
• Nasal congestion
• Nasal blockage
• Trouble breathing
• Obstruction during
exertion

50. References
1. Main article
Samarei R, Mabarian S. A randomised trial comparing the subjective outcomes following septoplasty with or without
inferior turbinoplasty. European Annals of Otorhinolaryngology, Head and Neck Diseases. 2020;137(4):277-283.
doi:10.1016/j.anorl.2020.01.024
2. Literature review
Dinesh Kumar R, Rajashekar M. Comparative Study of Improvement of Nasal Symptoms Following Septoplasty with
Partial Inferior Turbinectomy Versus Septoplasty Alone in Adults by NOSE Scale: A Prospective Study. Indian Journal of
Otolaryngology and Head & Neck Surgery. 2015;68(3):275-284. doi:10.1007/s12070-015-0928-2

51. Thank you