ArticleInternational forum of allergy & rhinology2025
A cost utility analysis for the management of acute exacerbations of chronic rhinosinusitis.
Article in International forum of allergy & rhinology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Acute Exacerbations of Chronic Rhinosinusitis.Current allergy and asthma reports · 2025Review
- A cost utility analysis for the management of acute exacerbations of chronic rhinosinusitis.International forum of allergy & rhinology · 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
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThe management of acute exacerbations of chronic rhinosinusitis (AECRS) is understudied and the most cost-effective management of AECRS has not been previously investigated. The aim of this study is to determine the most cost-effective strategy for the initial management of AECRS.
methodsThe study design consisted of a decision-tree economic model comparing three different initial strategies for managing a patient perceived AECRS: observation, upfront rescue medications, or clinic visit with diagnostic nasal endoscopy (DNE). The primary study outcome was the disease burden of a single AECRS, which was determined by the health utility value and the duration of symptoms. Strategies with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio < $50,000/quality-adjusted life year (QALY) or equivalently < $137/quality-adjusted life day (QALD) were considered cost-effective.
resultsObservation was the most cost-effective strategy at a willingness to pay of $137 per QALD. One-way sensitivity analysis demonstrated that observation was more effective than upfront rescue medications when the probability of bacterial infection as the cause of AECRS was <24.0%. Upfront rescue medications wer more cost effective than observation when the probability of bacterial infection exceeded 49.0%. Clinic visit with DNE was the most effective strategy to manage an AECRS, but it was not considered cost-effective.
conclusionObservation is the most cost-effective strategy for the initial management of AECRS when there is a low likelihood of bacterial infection. When the probability of bacterial etiology of AECRS exceeds 49.0%, upfront rescue medications proved to be the most cost-effective strategy.
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.