Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31145430›Full record

ArticleJAMA otolaryngology-- head & neck surgery2019

Differences in the Intended Meaning of Congestion Between Patients and Clinicians.

Edward D McCoul, Alaa E Mohammed, Peter M Debbaneh, Maria Carratola, Amit S Patel

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in JAMA otolaryngology-- head & neck surgery, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–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

8 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. The nature of nasal discharge in chronic rhinosinusitis: a systematic review and meta-analysis using patient-reported outcomes.Acta otorhinolaryngologica Italica : organo ufficiale della Societa italiana di otorinolaringologia e chirurgia cervico-facciale · 2025
    Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Feasibility of Automated Precharting using GPT-4 in New Specialty Referrals.AMIA Joint Summits on Translational Science proceedings. AMIA Joint Summits on Translational Science · 2025
    Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. 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.

Edward D McCoulDepartment of Otorhinolaryngology, Ochsner Clinic Foundation, New Orleans, Louisiana.
Alaa E MohammedCenter for Outcomes and Health Services Research, Ochsner Clinic Foundation, New Orleans, Louisiana.
Peter M DebbanehDepartment of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, Tulane University School of Medicine, New Orleans, Louisiana.
Maria CarratolaDepartment of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, Tulane University School of Medicine, New Orleans, Louisiana.
Amit S PatelDepartment of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, Tulane University School of Medicine, New Orleans, Louisiana.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Importance: Disagreement in the presumed meaning of common medical terms may impair communication between patients and caregivers. Objective: To clarify the intended meaning of the term congestion among otolaryngology clinic patients and to identify discrepancies in definitions between patients and otolaryngologists. Design, Setting, and Participants: In this cross-sectional survey study from an otolaryngology clinic at an academic center, a semantics-based questionnaire was provided to consecutive new patients during intake for a clinical encounter from December 2016 through February 2017, and to 31 otolaryngologists and 28 nonotolaryngologist physicians in February 2018. Respondent definitions for congestion were selected from a list of 16 proposed terms covering 4 general categories. Main Outcome and Measures: Symptom categories for term used to describe congestion by patients and clinicians. Results: Among 226 patient respondents (133 female [58.8%]; mean [SD] age, 54 [15.6] years), the most commonly selected definitions for congestion were from the obstructive (199; 88.1%) and mucus-related (196; 86.7%) symptom categories. More than 1 general category was selected by 208 patients (92.0%), whereas 11 patients (4.9%) described congestion only in terms of mucus-related symptoms. Definitions were limited to upper respiratory tract symptoms by 83 (36.7%) patients and lower respiratory tract symptoms by 2 (0.9%) patients. Among 31 otolaryngologists, congestion was most frequently defined in terms of obstructive symptoms (difference, 11.9%; 95% CI, 7.4%-16.5%). In contrast, patients more often described congestion in terms of pressure-related (difference, 38.8%; 95% CI, 7.5%-70.1%) or mucus-related (difference, 51.2%; 95% CI, 22.6%-79.9%) symptoms. A total of 22 otolaryngologists (71.0%) defined congestion using 1 to 4 symptoms, compared with only 69 patients (30.5%). Conclusions and Relevance: The definition of congestion appears to be highly variable and ambiguous for many patients. Moreover, the findings suggest that patients and otolaryngologists generally do not describe congestion using the same terms.

Indexed as

OtolaryngologistsPhysician-Patient RelationsTerminology as TopicCross-Sectional StudiesDissent and DisputesFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedMucusOtorhinolaryngologic Diseases

Identifiers

PMID31145430
PMCPMC6547093

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.