ArticleHNO2025
[Enhanced quality of documentation for biologic therapy of chronic rhinosinusitis through structured digital reporting and indication?]
Article in HNO, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Structured panendoscopy reports improve report completeness and documentation time.Scientific reports · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundWith targeted inhibition of type 2 inflammation, biologics represent the standard add-on therapy for inadequately controlled severe forms of chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyps (CRSwNP). Despite standardization with paper-based checklists, the documentation of medical history and current findings pertinent to indication criteria are a significant challenge for physicians. Through development of an application based on structured reporting, the current study aimed to improve documentation quality and simplify the decision-making process. Previously available paper checklists served as a comparison.
methodsFor this study, a digital incremental tool was programmed to record current findings and check for fulfilment of indication criteria. The tool was compared with other checklists in terms of completeness, time required, and readability.
resultsA total of 20 findings were collected for each of the three documentation options and included in the analysis. Documentation with the two paper-based checklists had comparable information content: 17.5 ± 5.1/21.7 ± 7.6 points out of a maximum of 43 points; p > 0.05. Documentation using the digital application led to a significant increase in information content compared to all paper-based documentation. The average score was 38.25 ± 3.7 (88.9% of maximum; p < 0.001). On average, user satisfaction was high (9.6/10). Use of the digital application was initially more time consuming, but as more cases were documented, the time taken improved significantly.
conclusionIn the future, structured reporting using apps could replace paper-based reporting for the indication of biologic therapy in CRSwNP patients and offer additional benefits in terms of data quality and traceability of results. The increasing volume of documentation in the future, the progress of digitalization, and the possibility of networking between individual centers make introduction of the app in the near future both likely and economical.
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.