ArticleInternational forum of allergy & rhinology2026
External Validation of a Multivariable Diagnostic Prediction Model for Acute Invasive Fungal Rhinosinusitis in Tertiary Care Settings.
Article in International forum of allergy & rhinology, 2026. 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.
- External Validation of a Multivariable Diagnostic Prediction Model for Acute Invasive Fungal Rhinosinusitis in Tertiary Care Settings.International forum of allergy & rhinology · 2026Article
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundPrompt detection and intervention are crucial for improving outcomes in acute invasive fungal rhinosinusitis (AIFS). Diagnostic prediction models assist in risk-stratification, but their accuracy requires testing through external validation. This study aims to validate a previously published diagnostic prediction model for AIFS in an independent cohort.
methodsA retrospective chart review was conducted at a tertiary care center (2008-2023) to identify patients with an otolaryngology consult for suspected AIFS. Of 65 patients identified, 11 (16.9%) were diagnosed with AIFS based on histopathology. Risk was calculated using Yin et al.'s predictive model. Predictive performance was assessed by calibration and discrimination.
resultsPatients had significantly higher rates of diabetes (46.2% vs. 26.1%, p = 0.002), long-term steroid use (60% vs. 28.2%, p < 0.0001), and solid organ transplantation (38.5% vs. 8.5%, p < 0.001), compared with the development cohort, with conversely lower rates of hematologic malignancy (29.2% vs. 58.7, p < 0.001) and neutropenia (19.4% vs. 41%, p = 0.001). Despite these differences, both the three-variable (C-index: 0.844; 95% CI, 0.736-0.952) and four-variable models (C-index: 0.963; 95% CI, 0.919-1) showed adequate discrimination. Both models exhibited slight overprediction of risk, with a calibration-in-the-large predicted risk of 24.1% (95% CI, 13.68-34.46) for the three-variable model and 24.2% (95% CI, 13.76-34.57) for the four-variable model. Calibration plots confirmed overprediction.
conclusionThe AIFS diagnostic model demonstrates acceptable discrimination and calibration on external validation, with generalizability to patients with different comorbidities. Larger studies are recommended to further test the model's predictive performance and clinical applicability.
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.