ArticlePloS one2020
A new approach to categorization of radiologic inflammation in chronic rhinosinusitis.
Article in PloS one, 2020. 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.
- Applying Latent Variable Models to Estimate Cumulative Exposure Burden to Chemical Mixtures and Identify Latent Exposure Subgroups: A Critical Review and Future Directions.Statistics in biosciences · 2024Article
- Radiological score of computed tomography scans predicts revision surgery for chronic rhinosinusitis.Acta otorhinolaryngologica Italica : organo ufficiale della Societa italiana di otorinolaringologia e chirurgia cervico-facciale · 2022Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
Chronic rhinosinusitis (CRS) is a prevalent condition. Clinical diagnosis requires subjective evidence (i.e. symptoms) and objective evidence of inflammation (e.g. sinus computed tomography [CT]). Few studies have assessed differences in common CT scoring approaches for CRS, the Lund-Mackay (LM) system and its modified version (mLM); none in a general population sample. The aims of this study were to answer the following: (1) Is mLM superior to LM? (2) Should nasal cavity opacification be included in scoring? (3) How should location-specific scores be utilized? (4) If location-specific scores are summed, what should be the cutoff? (5) Are associations of opacification with symptoms observed when using different measurement approaches? We scored sinus CTs using LM and mLM from 526 subjects selected from a larger CRS study. Exploratory factor analysis (EFA) assessed similarity of mLM and LM. Latent class analysis (LCA) identified subgroups of sinus opacification patterns. Factors associated with group membership and relations with nasal and sinus symptoms (NSS) guided clinical relevance. EFA suggested no differences between LM and mLM, or after addition of nasal cavity opacification. LCA identified three opacification groups: no/mild, localized, and diffuse. Males were 2.7x more likely to have diffuse opacification than females, as were those with asthma or hay fever. A LM cutoff of 3 had similar performance to the currently used 4. Diffuse opacification was associated with nasal blockage and smell loss. Differing patterns of opacification may be clinically relevant, improving measurement of objective evidence in studies of CRS and sinus diseases.
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.