Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42133337›Full record

ArticleJAMA otolaryngology-- head & neck surgery2026

Validation of an Adaptive Sinonasal Outcome Test.

Selena K Zhang, Sapideh Gilani, Ayako Stanlie, Jay F Piccirillo, Anthony Prince, Carleton Eduardo Corrales, Allen Zhou, Sana Alkhatib, Jennifer J Shin

Abstract readValidation Study
In one paragraph

Article in JAMA otolaryngology-- head & neck surgery, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

9 authors.

Selena K ZhangDepartment of Surgery, Mass General Brigham, Boston, Massachusetts.
Sapideh GilaniDepartment of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, University of San Diego, San Diego, California.
Ayako StanlieInternational Clinic, Tokyo, Japan.
Jay F PiccirilloDepartment of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, Washington University in St Louis, St Louis, Missouri.
Anthony PrinceDepartment of Surgery, Mass General Brigham, Boston, Massachusetts.
Carleton Eduardo CorralesDepartment of Surgery, Mass General Brigham, Boston, Massachusetts.
Allen ZhouDepartment of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, Mass General Brigham, Boston, Massachusetts.
Sana AlkhatibDepartment of Surgery, Mass General Brigham, Boston, Massachusetts.
Jennifer J ShinDepartment of Surgery, Mass General Brigham, Boston, Massachusetts.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Importance: The Sino-Nasal Outcome Test (SNOT) is used worldwide to assess chronic rhinosinusitis (CRS). An adaptive form of this instrument has established concordance between subjective patient-reported outcomes and objective imaging findings, but its broader psychometric properties have yet to be evaluated. Objective: To evaluate whether the adaptive SNOT can function as a validated instrument. Design, Setting, and Participants: This validation diagnostic study of internal consistency, reliability, responsiveness, and convergent and discriminant validity of an adaptive SNOT instrument included consecutive patients 15 years and older who prospectively completed the adaptive SNOT, including factor analysis on 1072 responses. Computed tomography (CT) imaging of the sinuses was performed in 70 patients. Data were collected from January 2024 to August 2025, and data were analyzed from August to September 2025. Exposures: CRS and allergy-related symptoms as well as secondary ear, sleep, psychological, and productivity domains were assessed through completion of the adaptive SNOT instrument. Lund-Mackay CT scores (LMCT) were calculated to measure objective disease severity in sinus imaging, while Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System scores were used to assess general health. Main Outcomes and Measures: Factor analysis and internal consistency were assessed. Adaptive SNOT scores in patients with LMCT scores less than 5 or 5 and greater were evaluated via differences in means and effect sizes. Convergent validity was evaluated with Spearman ρ. Intrarater reliability was evaluated with Cohen κ, Spearman ρ, and intraclass correlation coefficient. Results: Of 1072 included patients, 782 (72.9%) were female, and the mean (SD) age was 54 (21) years. The adaptive SNOT nasal domain and all-domain scores clearly distinguished between patients with LMCT scores of 5 and greater and those with LMCT scores less than 5 (nasal domain score: difference in means, 0.33; 95% CI, 0.03-0.63; Cohen d = 0.80; all-domain score: difference in means, 3.04; 95% CI, 0.02-6.05; Cohen d = 0.57). Adaptive SNOT scores also demonstrated associations with physical, mental, social, and global health (associations ranged from low to strong). Intrarater reliability was substantial for both the nasal domain alone (Cohen κ range, 0.72-0.74) and across all domains (Cohen κ range, 0.73-0.75). Additionally, the adaptive SNOT nasal and all-domain scores were responsive to change and improved among patients who received CRS treatment with medication or surgery from a mean score of 9.12 (95% CI, 6.37-11.87) to 2.47 (95% CI, 0.89-4.05) (Cohen d = 0.76). Conclusions and Relevance: Findings of this validation diagnostic study support the validation of the adaptive SNOT instrument for assessing CRS-related and allergic rhinitis-related symptoms in clinical and research settings.

Indexed as

Patient Reported Outcome MeasuresRhinitisRhinosinusitisSino-Nasal Outcome TestSinusitisAdultAgedChronic DiseaseFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedProspective StudiesPsychometricsReproducibility of ResultsTomography, X-Ray Computed

Identifiers

PMID42133337
PMCPMC13177195

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.