Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25913815›Full record

ArticleInternational forum of allergy & rhinology2015

The impact of diabetes mellitus on outcomes of endoscopic sinus surgery: a nested case-control study.

Amal Hajjij, Jess C Mace, Zachary M Soler, Timothy L Smith, Peter H Hwang

Open access · bronzeAbstract readMulticenter Study
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in International forum of allergy & rhinology, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
2.0field-weighted citation impact, top 15% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

10 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 20 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Review
  4. Current Review of Comorbidities in Chronic Rhinosinusitis.Current allergy and asthma reports · 2024
    Review
  5. Article
  6. Hormonal Effects on Asthma, Rhinitis, and Eczema.The journal of allergy and clinical immunology. In practice · 2022
    Review
  7. International consensus statement on allergy and rhinology: Olfaction.International forum of allergy & rhinology · 2022
    Review
  8. Article
  9. Observational
  10. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.

Amal HajjijDepartment of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, Division of Rhinology and Endoscopic Skull Base Surgery, Stanford University Medical Center, Stanford, CA.
Jess C MaceDepartment of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, Division of Rhinology and Sinus Surgery, Oregon Sinus Center, Oregon Health and Science University, Portland, OR.
Zachary M SolerDepartment of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, Division of Rhinology and Sinus Surgery, Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston, SC.
Timothy L SmithDepartment of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, Division of Rhinology and Sinus Surgery, Oregon Sinus Center, Oregon Health and Science University, Portland, OR.
Peter H HwangDepartment of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, Division of Rhinology and Endoscopic Skull Base Surgery, Stanford University Medical Center, Stanford, CA.
Oregon Health & Science University · USMedical University of South Carolina · USStanford Medicine · USStanford University · US

Funding

DETERMINANTS OF SURGICAL OUTCOMES IN CHRONIC SINUSITISR01DC005805 · NIDCD · OREGON HEALTH & SCIENCE UNIVERSITY · PI SMITH, TIMOTHY L, SOLER, ZACHARY M · 2004 to 2020
$7.6M
NIDCD NIH HHS R01 DC005805
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundGiven the immune impairment associated with diabetes mellitus (DM), its impact on chronic rhinosinusitis (CRS) is a potentially relevant concern; however, it has not been well-studied. A single retrospective study reported worse postoperative quality of life outcomes in DM patients with CRS. Our study evaluated the effect of comorbid DM on outcomes of endoscopic sinus surgery (ESS) using a prospective study design.

methodsUsing a multicentered, prospective cohort of patients (n = 437) undergoing ESS for recalcitrant CRS, a nested case-control comparison was performed between 20 adult DM patients (cases) and 20 non-DM patients (controls), matched 1:1 for age and Lund-Mackay computed tomography (CT) scores. Outcome measures included 22-item Sinonasal Outcome Test (SNOT-22), Rhinosinusitis Disability Index (RSDI), Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ-2), and Brief Smell Identification Test (BSIT).

resultsMean follow-up was similar between cases (mean ± standard deviation: 12.6 ± 6.0 months) and controls (12.9 ± 5.9 months; p = 0.862). All preoperative scores were statistically equivalent between DM and non-DM cohorts. Both cohorts showed significant post-ESS improvement in SNOT-22 (p = 0.001) and RSDI scores (p < 0.001), and no significant change in PHQ-2 or BSIT scores. The magnitude of score changes was statistically equivalent between the 2 cohorts for all outcome measures with no differences in postoperative score changes between insulin-dependent DM patients and those managed by oral hypoglycemics or dietary restriction (p ≥ 0.444).

conclusionDM patients with CRS experience similar degrees of symptomatic benefit from ESS compared to controls. Insulin dependence does not appear to adversely affect surgical outcome but a larger cohort would better assess the effect of DM type and control on surgical outcomes in CRS.

Indexed as

Natural Orifice Endoscopic SurgeryAgedCase-Control StudiesChronic DiseaseDiabetes MellitusFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedParanasal SinusesProspective StudiesRhinitisSinusitisTreatment Outcomecomorbiditydiabetes mellitusendoscopyoutcome assessmentquality of lifesinusitis

Identifiers

PMID25913815
PMCPMC4467792
OpenAlexW1576341153

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.