Remember Me
Or use your Academic/Social account:


Or use your Academic/Social account:


You have just completed your registration at OpenAire.

Before you can login to the site, you will need to activate your account. An e-mail will be sent to you with the proper instructions.


Please note that this site is currently undergoing Beta testing.
Any new content you create is not guaranteed to be present to the final version of the site upon release.

Thank you for your patience,
OpenAire Dev Team.

Close This Message


Verify Password:
Verify E-mail:
*All Fields Are Required.
Please Verify You Are Human:
fbtwitterlinkedinvimeoflicker grey 14rssslideshare1
Rubie, Isabel; Haighton, Catherine; O’Hara, James; Rousseau, Nikki; Steen, Nick; Stocken, Deborah D.; Sullivan, Frank; Vale, Luke; Wilkes, Scott; Wilson, Janet (2015)
Publisher: BioMed Central
Journal: Trials
Languages: English
Types: Article
Subjects: Medicine (miscellaneous), RA0421, Randomised controlled trial, Tonsillectomy, RD, RA0421 Public health. Hygiene. Preventive Medicine, Sore throat, RD Surgery, Tonsillitis, Study Protocol, NDAS, A300, Pharmacology (medical), Surgery
This project is funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment (HTA) Programme (project number 12/146/06). BACKGROUND: The role of tonsillectomy in the management of adult tonsillitis remains uncertain and UK regional variation in tonsillectomy rates persists. Patients, doctors and health policy makers wish to know the costs and benefits of tonsillectomy against conservative management and whether therapy can be better targeted to maximise benefits and minimise risks of surgery, hence maximising cost-effective use of resources. NATTINA incorporates the first attempt to map current NHS referral criteria against other metrics of tonsil disease severity. METHODS/DESIGN: A UK multi-centre, randomised, controlled trial for adults with recurrent tonsillitis to compare the clinical and cost-effectiveness of tonsillectomy versus conservative management. An initial feasibility study comprises qualitative interviews to investigate the practicality of the protocol, including willingness to randomise and be randomised. Approximately 20 otolaryngology staff, 10 GPs and 15 ENT patients will be recruited over 5 months in all 9 proposed main trial participating sites. A 6-month internal pilot will then recruit 72 patients across 6 of the 9 sites. Participants will be adults with recurrent acute tonsillitis referred by a GP to secondary care. Randomisation between tonsillectomy and conservative management will be according to a blocked allocation method in a 1:1 ratio stratified by centre and baseline disease severity. If the pilot is successful, the main trial will recruit a further 528 patients over 18 months in all 9 participating sites. All participants will be followed up for a total of 24 months, throughout which both primary and secondary outcome data will be collected. The primary outcome is the number of sore throat days experienced over the 24-month follow-up. The pilot and main trials include an embedded qualitative process evaluation. DISCUSSION: NATTINA is designed to evaluate the relative effectiveness and efficiency of tonsillectomy versus conservative management in patients with recurrent sore throat who are eligible for surgery. Most adult tonsil disease and surgery has an impact on economically active age groups, with individual and societal costs through loss of earnings and productivity. Avoidance of unnecessary operations and prioritisation of those individuals likely to gain most from tonsillectomy would reduce costs to the NHS and society. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN55284102, Date of Registration: 4 August 2014. Publisher PDF Peer reviewed
  • The results below are discovered through our pilot algorithms. Let us know how we are doing!

    • 1. Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network (SIGN). Management of sore throat and indications for tonsillectomy: a national clinical guideline (117). Edinburgh, UK: Healthcare Improvement Scotland; 2010.
    • 2. Suleman M, Clark MP, Goldacre M, Burton M. Exploring the variation in paediatric tonsillectomy rates between English regions: a 5-year NHS and independent sector data analysis. Clin Otolaryngol. 2010;35(2):111-7.
    • 3. Burton MJ, Glasziou PP. Tonsillectomy or adeno-tonsillectomy versus non-surgical treatment for chronic/recurrent acute tonsillitis. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2009;1:CD001802.
    • 4. Alho O-P, Koivunen P, Penna T, Teppo H, Koskela M, Luotonen J. Tonsillectomy versus watchful waiting in recurrent streptococcal pharyngitis in adults: randomised controlled trial. BMJ (Clinical research ed). 2007;334(7600):939.
    • 5. Hospital Episode Statistics, Admitted Patient Care - England, 2012-13. Leeds, England: Health and Social Care Information Centre; 2012-13.
    • 6. Hospital Episode Statistics, Admitted Patient Care - England, 2011-12. Leeds, England: Health and Social Care Information Centre; 2011-12.
    • 7. Mathiesen O, Jorgensen DG, Hilsted KL, Trolle W, Stjernholm P, Christiansen H, et al. Pregabalin and dexamethasone improves post-operative pain treatment after tonsillectomy. Acta Anaesthesiol Scand. 2011;55(3):297-305.
    • 8. Hsu APP, Tan KL, Tan YB, Han HJ. Lu PKS Benefits and efficacy of tonsillectomy for recurrent tonsillitis in adults. Acta Otolaryngol. 2007;127(1):62-4.
    • 9. Chidambaram A, Nigam A, Cardozo AA. Anticipated absence from work ('sick leave') following routine ENT surgery: are we giving the correct advice? A postal questionnaire survey. Clin Otolaryngol Allied Sci. 2001;26(2):104-8.
    • 10. Mathew R, Asimacopoulos E, Walker D, Gutierrez T, Valentine P. Pitkin L Analysis of clinical negligence claims following tonsillectomy in England 1995 to 2010. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol. 2012;121(5):337-40.
    • 11. Heiser C, Landis BN, Giger R, Van Cao H, Guinand N, Hörmann K, et al. Taste disorders after tonsillectomy: a long-term follow-up. Laryngoscope. 2012;122(6):1265-6.
    • 12. Smithard A, Cullen C, Thirlwall AS, Aldren C. Tonsillectomy may cause altered tongue sensation in adult patients. J Laryngol Otol. 2009;123(5):545-9.
    • 13. Salkind AR, Wright JM. Economic burden of adult pharyngitis: the payer's perspective. Value Health. 2008;11(4):621-7.
    • 14. van der Velden AW, Pijpers EJ, Kuyvenhoven MM, Tonkin-Crine SK, Little P. Verheij T J Effectiveness of physician-targeted interventions to improve antibiotic use for respiratory tract infections. Br J Gen Pract. 2012;62(605):e801-7.
    • 15. Little P, Gould C, Williamson I, Warner G, Gantley M, Kinmonth AL. Reattendance and complications in a randomised trial of prescribing strategies for sore throat: the medicalising effect of prescribing antibiotics. BMJ (Clinical research ed). 1997;215(7104):350-2.
    • 16. Little P. Open randomised trial of prescribing strategies in managing sore throat. BMJ (Clinical research ed). 1997;314(7082):722-7.
    • 17. de Salis I, Tomlin Z, Toerien M. Donovan J Using qualitative research methods to improve recruitment to randomized controlled trials: the quartet study. J Health Serv Res Policy. 2008;13 Suppl 3:92-6.
    • 18. Lock C, Wilson J, Steen N, Eccles M, Mason H, Carrie S, et al. North of England and Scotland Study of Tonsillectomy and Adeno-tonsillectomy in Children (NESSTAC): a pragmatic randomised controlled trial with a parallel non-randomised preference study. Health Technol Assess (Winchester, England). 2010;14(13):1-164. iii-iv.
    • 19. Lock CA, Wilson J, Steen N, Eccles M, Brittain K, Carrie S, et al. Childhood tonsillectomy: who is referred and what treatment choices are made? Baseline findings from the North of England and Scotland Study of Tonsillectomy and Adenotonsillectomy in Children (NESSTAC). Arch Dis Child. 2010;95(3):203-8.
    • 20. Pope C, Ziebland S, Mays N. Analysing qualitative data. BMJ. 2000;320(7227):114-6.
    • 21. Barbour R. The newfound credibility of qualitative research? Tales of technical essentialism and co-option. Qual Health Res. 2003;13(7):1019-27.
    • 22. Elliott R, Fischer C, Rennie D. Evolving guidelines for publication of qualitative research studies in psychology and related fields. Br J Clin Psychol. 1999;38(3):215-29.
    • 23. May CR, Finch T, Ballini L, MacFarlane A, Mair F, Murray E, et al. Evaluating complex interventions and health technologies using normalization process theory: development of a simplified approach and web-enabled toolkit. BMC Health Serv Res. 2011;11:245.
    • 24. Francis JJ, Johnston M, Robertson C, Glidewell L, Entwistle V, Eccles MP, et al. What is an adequate sample size? Operationalising data saturation for theory-based interview studies. Psychol Health. 2010;25(10):1229-45.
    • 25. Skevas T, Klingmann C, Plinkert PK, Blaumann I. Development and validation of the tonsillectomy outcome inventory 14. HNO. 2012;60(9):801-6.
    • 26. Ware JE, Kosinski M, Keller SD. A 12-item short-form health survey: construction of scales and preliminary tests of reliability and validity. Med Care. 1996;34:220-33.
    • 27. Brazier J, Roberts J, Deverill M. The estimation of a preference-based measure of health from the SF-36. J Health Econ. 2002;21(2):271-92.
    • 28. Curtis L. Unit costs of health and social care. Canterbury: PSSRU, University of Kent; 2012.
    • 29. National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE). Guide to the methods of technology appraisal. London: National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE); 2013. p. 2013.
    • 30. O'Brien B, Gafni A. When do the dollars make sense? Toward a conceptual framework for contingent valuation studies in health care. Med Decis Making. 1996;16:288-99.
  • Inferred research data

    The results below are discovered through our pilot algorithms. Let us know how we are doing!

    Title Trust
  • No similar publications.

Share - Bookmark

Cite this article