ArticleInternational forum of allergy & rhinology2026
Rationale of New Grading System: Central Compartment Atopic Disease.
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.
- Rationale of New Grading System: Central Compartment Atopic Disease.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
12 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundCentral compartment atopic disease (CCAD) has recently been recognized as a distinct phenotype within the spectrum of type 2-dominant chronic rhinosinusitis (CRS). Although international guidelines highlight polypoid changes in the central nasal cavity, standardized diagnostic and classification criteria are still lacking. This study aims to develop and internally validate a consensus-based classification system through expert agreement.
methodsA two-round modified Delphi study was conducted with 10 international rhinology experts. Participants evaluated the need for a specific grading framework, the relative diagnostic value of nasal endoscopy versus radiology, and the clarity and applicability of the proposed criteria (Grades 0-IV). Six representative endoscopic and radiologic cases were used in each round to assess interpretive accuracy and interobserver agreement. Consensus was predefined as ≥ 80% of ratings in the top two categories (4-5) on a 5-point Likert scale.
resultsEighty percent of experts identified nasal endoscopy as the primary diagnostic tool in the first Delphi round. The interpretive accuracy of the preliminary grading system was high, with all panelists correctly recognizing the proposed distinctions. Interobserver agreement was substantial (κ = 0.72). In the second round, refined definitions improved overall consensus and reproducibility. Endoscopy was reaffirmed as the cornerstone of diagnosis, while radiology played a complementary role. Diagnostic clarity and agreement increased, reaching κ = 0.80.
conclusionThe consensus process confirmed nasal endoscopy as the key diagnostic method for CCAD, supported by substantial interobserver reproducibility. The refined definitions improved clarity and agreement, facilitating differentiation from other CRS phenotypes and establishing a reliable framework for future research.
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.