Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30573482›Full record

ArticleBMJ open2018

Management strategies for chronic rhinosinusitis: a qualitative study of GP and ENT specialist views of current practice in the UK.

Jane Vennik, Caroline Eyles, Mike Thomas, Claire Hopkins, Paul Little, Helen Blackshaw, Anne Schilder, Jim Boardman, Carl M Philpott

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMJ open, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

11 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Patient perspectives on endoscopic sinus surgery for chronic rhinosinusitis.Journal of otolaryngology - head & neck surgery = Le Journal d'oto-rhino-laryngologie et de chirurgie cervico-faciale · 2021
    Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. 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

9 authors.

Jane VennikPrimary Care and Population Sciences, Faculty of Medicine, University of Southampton, Southampton, UK.ORCID 0000-0003-4602-9805
Caroline EylesPrimary Care and Population Sciences, Faculty of Medicine, University of Southampton, Southampton, UK.
Mike ThomasPrimary Care and Population Sciences, Faculty of Medicine, University of Southampton, Southampton, UK.
Claire HopkinsGuy's and St. Thomas' NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK.
Paul LittlePrimary Care and Population Sciences, Faculty of Medicine, University of Southampton, Southampton, UK.
Helen BlackshawevidENT, University College London, London, UK.
Anne SchilderevidENT, University College London, London, UK.
Jim BoardmanFifth Sense: the charity of people with smell and taste disorders, Chinnor, Oxfordshire, UK.
Carl M PhilpottNorwich Medical School, University of East Anglia, Norwich, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-1125-3236

Funding

Department of Health NIHR-RP-011-045Department of Health RP-PG-0614-20011
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesTo explore general practitioner (GP) and ears, nose and throat (ENT) specialist perspectives of current treatment strategies for chronic rhinosinusitis (CRS) and care pathways through primary and secondary care.

designSemi-structured qualitative telephone interviews as part of the MACRO programme (Defining best Management for Adults with Chronic Rhinosinusitis)

settingPrimary care and secondary care ENT outpatient clinics in the UK.

participantsTwelve GPs and 9 ENT specialists consented to in-depth telephone interviews. Transcribed recordings were managed using NVivo software and analysed using inductive thematic analysis.

main outcome measuresHealthcare professional views of management options and care pathways for CRS.

resultsGPs describe themselves as confident in recognising CRS, with the exception of assessing nasal polyps. In contrast, specialists report common missed diagnoses (eg, allergy; chronic headache) when patients are referred to ENT clinics, and attribute this to the limited ENT training of GPs. Steroid nasal sprays provide the foundation of treatment in primary care, although local prescribing restrictions can affect treatment choice and poor adherence is perceived to be the causes of inadequate symptom control. Symptom severity, poor response to medical treatment and patient pressure drive referral, although there is uncertainty about optimal timing. Treatment decisions in secondary care are based on disease severity, polyp status, prior medical treatment and patient choice, but there is major uncertainty about the place of longer courses of antibiotics and the use of oral steroids. Surgery is regarded as an important treatment option for patients with severe symptoms or with nasal polyps, although timing of surgery remains unclear, and the uncertainty about net long-term benefits of surgery makes balancing of benefits and risks more difficult.

conclusionsClinicians are uncertain about best management of patients with CRS in both primary and secondary care and practice is varied. An integrated care pathway for CRS is needed to improve patient management and timely referral.

Indexed as

Attitude of Health PersonnelGeneral PracticeOtolaryngologyPractice Patterns, Physicians'Administration, OralAdrenal Cortex HormonesAdultAgedAnti-Bacterial AgentsChronic DiseaseFemaleHumansInterviews as TopicLong-Term CareMaleMiddle AgedAdrenal Cortex HormonesAnti-Bacterial Agentsendoscopic sinus surgeryent specialist viewsgp viewspatient care managementqualitative researchsinusitis

Identifiers

PMID30573482
PMCPMC6303610

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.