THE ROAD TO TRIOLOGICAL SOCIETY MEMBERSHIP

1. THE ROAD TO TRIOLOGICAL SOCIETY MEMBERSHIP

2. Triological Society • Founded in 1895 in New York • Best and brightest in academic and clinical otolaryngology • Society Membership benefits • Provides role models • Fellowship with like-minded peers who share common values, interests, and concerns

3. Why consider writing a thesis • Unique contribution to otolaryngology • Distinction of being elected to the most prestigious society in otolaryngology • Career advancement - early and mid career • Requirement for promotion at many academic centers • Career defining and recognition • Career Distinguishing - senior candidates • Requirement for other Senior Society Membership

4. REQUIREMENTS FOR CANDIDACY • Board-certified otolaryngologist • In practice > 3 years • Published > 2 papers after residency • Attended 3 national meetings in last 5 years: At least 1 must be Trio • Be proposed by 2 active members & approved by Council Write a thesis for review & approval

5. Choosing your Sponsor • Academic mentor or colleague who is a member • Choose one sponsor from your section • Familiar with your work and professional goals • Time to mentor/guide/coach you through the process

6. Timeline for candidacy • October 1 - Formal proposal for candidacy with application materials completed • November/December - Review of candidate materials by admissions committee • January - Candidate materials presented at business meetings, Council approval • February - Notification of candidate/authorization to write thesis

7. Timeline after candidate approved • August - Thesis due to administrative office • proposer and seconder must provide coverletters stating that they have reviewed the final copy of the thesis • Candidate statement - personally responsible for 70% or more of the text and 70% or more of the research. • October/November Theses reviewed • January Council considers and votes on Review Committee recommendations • April/May Successful candidates inducted as Active Fellows (at Spring meeting)

8. Choosing your topic and preparing your thesis

9. General Suggestions • Area of interest or expertise • demonstrable of a career long unique contribution to otolaryngology for mid/senior candidates – in alignment with a career direction for early/mid career candidates • Resources to execute • Statistician • Administrative assistant • Other pertinent infrastructure relative to topic

10. Requirements • Personally responsible for 70% or more of the text and 70% or more of the research • Collaborators are acknowledged • Not previously published or presented • Original topic- Requires extensive review of the literature • Extension of previously published work – de-identified in the body of the test – point deduction in scoring and could be rejected if not compliant • Should meet criteria for publication in an otolaryngology journal

11. SUCCESSFUL THESESTopic Areas2001 – 2015 (n = 369)

12. YOUR NEW BEST FRIEND • Consult a statistician UP FRONT! • Question design statistical treatment • Sample size estimations • Bias issues • Involve sponsor/mentor in planning process as he/she may have options for statistical support if you do not

13. SUCCESSFUL THESESProject Approach2009 – 2015 (n = 190) 10 5.3% 14 7.4% 36 18.9% 90 (47.4%) 40 21.05%

14. 2015: A YEAR OF CHANGE • Project categories • Basic research • Clinical research • Health services research • Technology/procedure development • Otolaryngology status and trends • Historical perspectives

15. TYPES OF PROJECTS BY CATEGORY • Clinical • Prospective or retrospective clinical data collection • Direct clinical application • Basic • Laboratory studies, in vivo, in vitro • Animal studies • Genetic studies • Health services • Patient outcomes, health-related QoL • Epidemiology, diversity, population statistics • Cost analysis

16. TYPES OF PROJECTS BY CATEGORY • Technology/procedure development • Development, standardization, beta testing of new technology • Development of new surgical or diagnostic procedure (incl. validation of HRQOL survey) • ORL status and trends • Resident and medical education • Impact of healthcare delivery systems in society • Historical perspectives • Medical history as it has influenced contemporary ORL knowledge and practice

17. 2015: A YEAR OF CHANGE • Review criteria • Tailored to project category • Three scoring components • General (all) • Methods, Approach, & Conclusions (varies with project) • Overall impact (all) • Numerical scoring • Guidelines and criteria published on Triological Society website

18. THE MOST IMPORTANT RULE • Read the guidelines for thesis format and submission • Read them again • Follow them to the letter

19. GENERAL CRITERIA • Objectives/hypothesis (where appropriate) • Focused background and review • Statement of type of project • Clearly written • Adherence to format and structure guidelines

20. FOUR TESTS OF THESIS TOPIC • Is it new? • Is it true? • So what/What is the relevance? • Who cares/Why will it be important? Fontanarosa, 2008

21. WRITE THE HYPOTHESIS • Write what you expect to findfrom your study. • State your hypothesis in a clear, concise sentence. • Should be directional and quantifiable • Should be simple, specific, andstated in advance

22. THE ANATOMY OF A THESIS • What I did • Why I did it • How I did it • What I found • What it means

23. ASKING THE RIGHT QUESTION Filling a knowledge gap • Relevance to otolaryngology, not just clinicalapplication • Will have sustained interest • Ask the question in such a way that either a positive or negative answer will be interesting • Be specific • Time, resources available • Subjects • Database/access, technical assistance • Collaborators if appropriate • Expertise!

24. Clinical Science Thesis • Begin by asking the question as a general statement • “In patients with recurrent acute sinusitis by accepted criteria is ESS the best treatment option to improve symptoms and disease-specific QOL?” • Consider PICO to help structure the question, identify elements • Patient/Population Intervention Control Outcome of interest

25. Clinical Science Thesis • Clear Hypothesis/Objectives • Study Design – IRB approval • Retrospective • Prospective • Combination • Aims/objectives are reflected in • study design and execution • Discussion supports the objectives/specific aim with clear comparison to current body of knowledge

26. Basic Science Thesis • Clear Hypothesis/Objectives • Study Design – IACUC or IRB approval • Specific discussion of steps taken and Aims/objectives are reflected in study design and execution • Discussion supports results and hypothesis

27. Health Sciences Research • Objectives – Hypothesis not but must have clear statement of aim/purpose/goal • Importance to Society or delivery of care • Methods of study are often • Descriptive and Statistical - be clear • Discussion demonstrative of the importance of the question supported by • Data • Current status

28. ORL Trends • Objectives – Hypothesis not necessary but must have clear statement of aim/purpose/goal • Education, Simulation • Importance to the specialty • Methods of study are often • Descriptive and Statistical - be clear • Discussion demonstrative of the importance and relevance of the question supported by • Data • Current status

29. Technology and Procedure Development • Objectives – Hypothesis not necessary • Innovation, creative approach to a new or old problem • Feasibility study • Importance of technology/procedure to the advancement of the specialty • Methods of study are often • Mostly Descriptive occasionally Statistical - be clear • Comparison to existing technology if relevant helpful • Discussion demonstrative of the importance and innovation

30. Historical Perspectives • Historical evolution relevant to the current objective • Descriptive • Diagrams, charts, graphics • Creativity • Innovation and provides a compelling story

31. Advisory Committee Members • Rick Pillsbury, MD, Committee Chair (otology/neurotology, alternative science) University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill - hcp@med.unc.edu • Craig Buchman, MD (otology/neurotology) Washington University, St. Louis - BuchmanC@ent.wustl.edu • Gaelyn Garrett, MD (laryngology) Vanderbilt University, Nashville - gaelyn.garrett@vanderbilt.edu • Michael Hoffer, MD (otology/neurotology) University of Miami - michael.hoffer@miami.edu • Peak Woo, MD (laryngology) New York, NY - peakwoo@peakwoo.com • Margaretha Casselbrant, MD (pediatric otolaryngology) Childrens Hospital, Pittsburgh - margaretha.casselbrant@chp.edu

32. Committee review and scoring

33. Thesis Committee • Committee chair and 6-8 members • Cross section of subspecialties • Blinded review process • Thesis primary reviewer assigned based on subspecialty • All members score thesis

35. Format and Structure • Contained in 40 pages with 50 references • Maintenance of anonymity in presentation • Do not use - ‘previous work in our lab’ • Absence of major deficiencies, errors, omissions • Clear of any non-disclosed conflicts of interest • Original project

36. OVERALL IMPACT • Significance • Was question or gap in knowledge answered, clarified, or clarified? • Will scientific knowledge and/or clinical practice be improved? • Innovation • Offer new insights into development of principles & practice of OTL-HNS? • Concepts, approaches, methods novel? • Contribution • Contribute to body of knowledge in ways consistent with mission of Triological Society? • Can project contribute to principles & practice of ORL-HNS, medicine, and/or society?

37. Awards • The Mosher Award - outstanding clinical research • The Fowler Award - outstanding basic research • The Hannley Award – outstanding alternative science • Honorable Mention • With Distinction Award 8-12 % of all submissions recognized with award

38. Reasons for rejection • Flawed methodology • Data does not support conclusions • Aims/purpose not clear • Obvious statistical errors • General formatting • Non compliance with anonymity • Multiple typographical errors

39. Process if rejected • Committee summary of concerns with recommendations for revision • Encourage to work with advisory committee member and sponsor for assistance • Re-submission is encouraged

40. Dana Thompson dmthompson@luriechildrens.org CONTACT