Search

As in other disciplines, the burgeoning knowledge in ENT medicine long ago surpassed our ability to adequately absorb it and maintain a proper overview. This can give rise to actual or assumed knowledge gaps that can impede the progress of the discipline and evidence-based treatment of patients. Clinics and medical practices also hold to traditional doctrines that shape day-to-day medicine, without these schools being challenged based on evidence.Between February and June 2015, 160 ENT clinics, including 34 university hospitals, and 2,670 ENT practices took part in a two-arm online survey on existing or perceived evidentiary gaps in ENT medicine using a previously development questionnaire. The survey used for half the participants was open in form; the other half were given a closed survey with systematics of the field for orientation. The survey was augmented with additional data such as the number of publications and focus areas in the clinics and the age and type of practice of the established physicians.The return rate from the clinics was 39.7%; the return rate of the closed surveys was 29.3%. Of the physicians in medical practice, 14.6% responded to the closed and 18.6% to the open survey. There were no major differences between the two forms of survey. Otological and oncological issues comprised approximately 30% of the list of answers from clinics. Corresponding questions were formulated regarding the current diagnostic and therapeutic problems, such as with stage-related tumor treatment or implantable hearing aids. Diagnostic procedures, e.g., special new procedures in audiology and vestibulogy, dominated the surveys from the practices. However clinics and practices alike cited marginal areas of the discipline that are of daily relevance.The cited knowledge gaps then needed to be verified or refuted and clarified based on research of the literature as to whether the existing evidence actually reached healthcare providers in the form of guidelines, publications, conferences or continuing training for application in daily practice. Other steps would include prioritizing future research, evidence mapping, deciding on further systematic reviews, and targeted studies in conjunction with procuring third-party funding and in cooperation with patient associations. The knowledge thus gained should ultimately be transferred in improved form for application in daily clinical practice. Ten questions of key importance each needed to be formulated for the hospitals and practices.

Treating patients requires the inclusion of existing evidence in any health care decision, to be able to choose the best diagnosis or treatment measure or to make valid prognosis statements for a particular patient in consideration of the physician's own expertise.The basis are clinical trials, the results of which are ideally gathered in systematic reviews, rated, summarized and published. In addition to the GCP (Good Clinical Practice)-compliant planning, conducting and analysis of clinical studies it is essential, that all study results are made publicly available, in order to avoid publication bias. This includes the public registration of planned and discontinued trials.In the last 25 years, the evidence-based medicine (EbM) has increasingly found its way into clinical practice and research. Here EbM is closely associated with the names Archibald Cochrane and David Sackett. In Germany, both the German Cochrane Centre (DCZ) and the network of evidence-based medicine (DNEbM) were established approximately 15 years ago. In the international Cochrane Collaboration clinicians and other scientists like statisticians interdisciplinary work side by side to develop the methods of evidence-based medicine and to address the topics of evidence generation and processing as well as the transfer of knowledge. Challenge: Existing evidence primarily serves doctors to support their decision-making, but is also the basis for providing scientific proof for a health care intervention's benefit to patients and ultimately payers/health insurances. The closure of existing evidence gaps requires substantial human and financial resources, a complex organizational structure and can only succeed with the involvement of clinical and methodological expertise and specific knowledge in the field of clinical research. In addition, the knowledge must be transferred into practice, using journals, guidelines, conferences, databases, information portals with processed evidence and not least the medical education of students.One problem is the wealth of information, so that in clinical practice there may be gaps in knowledge of actual evidence. Usually it still takes several years until new knowledge is fully implemented in daily practice.The German Society of Otolaryngology, Head and Neck Surgery (DGHNOKHC) and the German professional association of otolaryngologists (BVHNO) have a vested interest in supporting their members in the generation, processing and dissemination of evidence, and to foster the transfer of knowledge into practice. This includes the areas of diagnosis, treatment, prognosis and prevention as well as drug therapies or the application of medical devices or surgical procedures. Crucial is the regular determination of existing evidence gaps, including in the area of already established procedures, which must be followed by a prioritization of research questions and subsequent conduct of clinical research. Only with combined efforts even large trials can be performed, to test therapies and diagnostics for example, also after approval under everyday conditions. Methods, Results and Vision: The executive committees of DGHNOKHC and BVHNO have together founded the German Clinical Trials Unit for Ear, Nose and Throat medicine, Head and Neck Surgery (DSZ-HNO) to assist their members in the identification of evidence gaps and the planning and conduct of systematic reviews and clinical trials. The first projects have been started, including a BMBF(German Ministry for education and research)-funded clinical trial for the treatment of sudden hearing loss and a survey to detect evidence gaps in Otolaryngology. It seems both reasonable and feasible to provide a structure such as a jointly-run study center for doctors in hospitals and medical practices to assist in clinical research and to anchor the principles of evidence-based medicine in daily life.

Systemic steroids are widely used worldwide as a standard of care for primary therapy of idiopathic sudden sensorineural hearing loss (ISSHL). The German ISSHL guideline recommends high-dose steroids for primary therapy of ISSHL, without evidence from randomized controlled trials (RCTs). The rationale for the treatment of ISSHL using high dose steroids is only based on retrospective cohort studies.This article describes the planning and initiation of a multicenter, national, randomized, controlled clinical trial entitled Efficacy and safety of high dose glucocorticosteroid treatment for idiopathic sudden sensorineural hearing loss - a three-armed, randomized, triple-blind, multicenter trial (HODOKORT). This clinical trial aims to compare standard dose with two types of high-dose steroids for primary systemic therapy with respect to their efficacy in improving hearing, and thus communication ability, in patients with idiopathic sudden sensorineural hearing loss.This study is funded by the "Clinical Trials with High Patient Relevance" research program in the health research framework of the German Federal Ministry of Education and Research. It is one of two studies by the German Study Center of Clinical Trials of the German Society of Otorhinolaryngology, Head and Neck Surgery (DSZ-HNO). Planning and initiation was done in cooperation with the DSZ-HNO, the Coordination Center of Clinical Trials of the Martin-Luther-University Halle-Wittenberg, and the Study Center of the University Hospital Freiburg.

Systemic steroids are widely used worldwide as a standard of care for primary therapy of idiopathic sudden sensorineural hearing loss (ISSHL). The German ISSHL guideline recommends high-dose steroids for primary therapy of ISSHL, without evidence from randomized controlled trials (RCTs). The rationale for the treatment of ISSHL using high dose steroids is only based on retrospective cohort studies.This article describes the planning and initiation of a multicenter, national, randomized, controlled clinical trial entitled Efficacy and safety of high dose glucocorticosteroid treatment for idiopathic sudden sensorineural hearing loss - a three-armed, randomized, triple-blind, multicenter trial (HODOKORT). This clinical trial aims to compare standard dose with two types of high-dose steroids for primary systemic therapy with respect to their efficacy in improving hearing, and thus communication ability, in patients with idiopathic sudden sensorineural hearing loss.This study is funded by the "Clinical Trials with High Patient Relevance" research program in the health research framework of the German Federal Ministry of Education and Research. It is one of two studies by the German Study Center of Clinical Trials of the German Society of Otorhinolaryngology, Head and Neck Surgery (DSZ-HNO). Planning and initiation was done in cooperation with the DSZ-HNO, the Coordination Center of Clinical Trials of the Martin-Luther-University Halle-Wittenberg, and the Study Center of the University Hospital Freiburg.

It is a moral responsibility of those performing clinical studies towards patients, funding organizations, the scientific community and towards the general public to publish the results of clinical trials. Under-reporting of clinical trials with null or even negative results as well as over-reporting of trials with positive results can lead to a biased assessment of (new) treatments, which leads to overestimation of potential benefits and underestimation of potential risks. Comprehensive, publicly accessible clinical trial registries are now widely accepted as an essential tool to fill the information gap. Here, the background for implementing a clinical trials register in Germany is described, whereby publication bias, in particular, is addressed.

In order to provide a central portal for information on clinical research in Germany and thus to facilitate the search of planned, ongoing and completed clinical trials, the German Clinical Trials Register (GermanCTR) was implemented in cooperation with the WHO's registries network. It is an open access online register of clinical trials conducted in Germany, which allows all users to search for, register and share information on clinical trials. The project is funded by the Federal Ministry of Education and Research and is implemented at the Institute for Medical Biometry and Medical Informatics of the University Medical Center Freiburg as a joint project of the Clinical Trials Center Freiburg and the German Cochrane Center. Since October 2008 the GermanCTR is an approved WHO Primary Registry and allows clinical trial registration in Germany according to the requirements of the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE). Reasons for a national trials register, general and technical aspects of implementing the GermanCTR as well as the national and international integration are described here.

The European Union's so called Clinical Trials Directive 2001/20/EC was implemented in national law in Germany in August 2004, leading to the 12th amendment of the German Drug Law (Arzneimittelgesetz). The directive is intended to harmonize the clinical trial's regulatory environment across the European Union and to improve protection of human subjects. It lays down the principles and guidelines of Good Clinical Practice (GCP). As the regulation applies to all clinical trials on medicinal products for human use, and as only non-interventional studies are excluded, academic, investigator-initiated clinical trials will also have to comply with the EU clinical trials directive implemented in the German Drug Law. In an investigator-initiated trial in which the investigator takes the responsibility of a sponsor, the investigator-sponsor must take total legal and financial responsibility for the clinical trial. Since publicly funded clinical trials make a large contribution to improved care, concern has been expressed that non-commercial research projects will be reduced and the vital medical research conducted at academic institutions curtailed. Nonetheless GCP ensures a valid study design, qualified data management, analysis and monitoring of the trial and thereby promotes more valid data and protection of study participants. The trials are more likely to lead to reliable results leading to new therapies, strategies or a better understanding of diseases. What is needed, therefore, is an increase in public funding and the establishment of clinical trial units/organizations associated with the universities or hospitals where independent researchers have the possibility to obtain theoretical advice and practical help, professional training and support. In the end, the directive may serve as a stimulus to build a better national research environment and to promote public funding, and may lead to fewer but more valid clinical trials.

Continuous biotechnical development and rapid increase in knowledge in the field of research on human gene transfer raise scientific, medical, and ethical considerations in the scientific community and general public. Dissemination of new scientific findings is needed. Gene transfer studies today not only focus on monogenic diseases or life-threatening conditions such as cancer, but also comprise trials for diagnosis and prophylaxis and common medical conditions such as cardiovascular disease. This raises special attention and public discussion and requires even more the systematic monitoring and assessment of clinical trails being conducted. Whereas the number of gene transfer trials in the USA can be clearly specified, this had not been possible in Germany prior to the establishment of the DeReG database. The aim is implementation of a permanent registry comprehending all clinical gene transfer trials being conducted in Germany. Only a complete and updated database serves as a common foundation of knowledge for various groups and facilitates addressing scientific projects.