ReviewHNO2009
[Validated instruments to measure quality of life in patients with chronic rhinosinusitis].
Review in HNO, 2009. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed, 13 citations in OpenAlex.
- The Diagnosis and Treatment of Chronic Rhinosinusitis.Deutsches Arzteblatt international · 2024Review
- Molecular defects in primary ciliary dyskinesia are associated with agenesis of the frontal and sphenoid paranasal sinuses and chronic rhinosinusitis.Frontiers in molecular biosciences · 2023Article
- Article
- Course of olfaction after sinus surgery for chronic rhinosinusitis.Laryngoscope investigative otolaryngology · 2017Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Chronic rhinosinusitis (CRS) is a disease of remarkable medical and economic importance. Therefore, assessment of the objective as well as the subjective outcomes of different therapeutic strategies in CRS patients is of growing interest. Validated quality-of-life (QOL) instruments are one important means of assessing the subjective outcomes of patients. The Short Form 36 Health Survey (SF-36) is the most frequently used generic instrument in medicine and is typically used in prospective studies. A German version of this questionnaire has been validated, providing normative data as well as data for comparison with other diseases. The Glasgow Benefit Inventory, which was designed for retrospective studies, is another frequently used QOL instrument. Several disease-specific measuring instruments for use in CRS patients have been developed during the last 15 years. In this review, we evaluate 11 disease-specific QOL instruments. Only four of these instruments cover the four main symptoms of CRS and are validated instruments as well. The most frequently used instruments [Sino-Nasal Outcome Test 20 (SNOT-20) and the Chronic Sinusitis Survey] do not query all of the main symptoms of CRS, whereas the only validated German instrument (SNOT-20 GAV) meets this requirement. For the latter instrument, a grading scale is available that allows interpretation of the results for a single patient.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.