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