ArticleThe Laryngoscope2016
Productivity outcomes following endoscopic sinus surgery for recurrent acute rhinosinusitis.
Article in The Laryngoscope, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 21 citations in OpenAlex.
- Sino-Nasal outcome test-22 outcomes after sinus surgery: A systematic review and meta-analysis.The Laryngoscope · 2018Pooled it
- Efficacy of chitosan dressing on endoscopic sinus surgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis.European archives of oto-rhino-laryngology : official journal of the European Federation of Oto-Rhino-Laryngological Societies (EUFOS) : affiliated with the German Society for Oto-Rhino-Laryngology - Head and Neck Surgery · 2017Pooled it
- Article
- Health utility values for patients with recurrent acute rhinosinusitis undergoing endoscopic sinus surgery: a nested case control study.International forum of allergy & rhinology · 2016Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
objectives/hypothesisWe sought to evaluate preoperative and postoperative productivity losses and quality of life (QOL) impairment reported by patients with recurrent acute rhinosinusitis (RARS) as compared to patients with chronic rhinosinusitis without nasal polyposis (CRSsNP). STUDY
designProspective, multi-institutional, nested case-control.
methodsParticipants with RARS (n = 20) and CRSsNP (n = 20) undergoing endoscopic sinus surgery (ESS) were enrolled as part of a prospective cohort study. For comparison, participants diagnosed with RARS cases were age/gender-matched to control participants diagnosed with CRSsNP using a 1:1 ratio.
resultsRARS and CRSsNP participants were followed for ∼14 months postoperatively. Productivity losses were reported as the number of days missed from normal productive activities out of the previous 90 days. RARS participants reported similar baseline productivity losses (12.6 ± 27.1 [standard deviation]) as participants with CRSsNP (11.7 ± 20.9; P = .314). Postoperatively, improvement in productivity losses was similar between RARS participants and CRSsNP controls (-6.7 ± 20.0 vs. -9.8 ± 19.1; P = .253). Preoperative and postoperative disease-specific QOL measures (Sino-Nasal Outcomes Test-22 and Rhinosinusitis Disability Index) were similar between the two groups. RARS participants reported a significant decrease in days of previous antibiotic (P = .009) and nasal decongestant (P = .004) use following ESS, whereas participants with CRSsNP reported a significant decrease in antibiotic (P = .002) and oral corticosteroid use (P = .002).
conclusionsRARS patients report baseline productivity losses and disease-specific QOL impairment to levels that parallel those with CRSsNP. Patients with RARS report improvement in QOL following ESS in all disease-specific QOL measures and in several medication measures. Productivity losses and postoperative improvements are similar between patients with RARS and CRSsNP. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 3b Laryngoscope, 126:1046-1053, 2016.
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.