ArticleLaryngoscope investigative otolaryngology2016
Academic institution pilot study shows far fewer diagnoses of sinusitis than reported nationally.
Article in Laryngoscope investigative otolaryngology, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
- A contemporary analysis of clinical and demographic factors of chronic rhinosinusitis patients and their association with disease severity.Irish journal of medical science · 2018Article
- Economics of Chronic Rhinosinusitis.Current allergy and asthma reports · 2017Review
- A diagnostic dilemma: chronic sinusitis diagnosed by non-otolaryngologists.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
4 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveTo compare the prevalence of acute sinusitis (AS) and chronic sinusitis (CS) diagnosed by primary care and emergency medicine physicians in our academic institution to national data. STUDY
designCross-sectional pilot study of institutional census data and a population-based national sample. The setting was primary care and emergency departments at an academic healthcare institution and community healthcare practices nationally. MATERIALS AND
methodsWe determined the proportion of adults visits at our institution for AS and CS from January 1, 2005, to December 31, 2010. We used the same parameters with the National Ambulatory Medical Care Survey and the National Hospital Ambulatory Medical Care Survey. As a control comparison, we determined the proportion of visits for epistaxis.
resultsThe sinusitis prevalence was considerably lower at our academic institution: all sinusitis (AS and CS combined) ranged from 0.8% to 1.0% at our institution compared to 3.1% to 3.7% nationally. There were very small differences between AS rates at the academic institution (0.7%-0.8%) and nationally (0.8%-1.4%,
conclusionThe prevalence of CS is much lower at our academic institution, but the prevalence of AS and epistaxis are similar to national data. This suggests CS is over-diagnosed by primary care and emergency medicine providers and that CS diagnosed outside of an academic institution or a specialty clinic may not hold up to diagnostic scrutiny. For this reason, diagnostic and treatment protocols for CS that have been developed in academic specialty clinics should not be extrapolated to patients diagnosed with CS in the community setting. The most appropriate intervention for the majority of patients diagnosed with CS in primary care and emergency medicine may be education of providers and patients about conditions that may be misdiagnosed as CS.
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.