MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W10005962 · doi:10.4193/rhino11.271

Endoscopic sinus surgery in patients with cystic fibrosis: a systematic review and meta-analysis of pulmonary function

2012· review· en· W10005962 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueRhinology Journal · 2012
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSinusitis and nasal conditions
Canadian institutionsIzaak Walton Killam Health CentreDalhousie UniversityUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineSinusitisrhinorrheaPulmonary function testingSurgeryProspective cohort studyFunctional endoscopic sinus surgeryEndoscopyMeta-analysisCystic fibrosisCohortCohort studyInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

INTRODUCTION: The role of endoscopic sinus surgery (ESS) in patients with cystic fibrosis (CF) is not clearly defined. OBJECTIVE: TO perform a systematic review of subjective and objective outcomes of ESS in CF. METHODS: A systematic review was performed using the keywords 'sinusitis,' 'sinus surgery,' 'nasal polyps' and 'cystic fibrosis.' The quality of papers was assessed using the NICE scoring scale. Outcomes included safety, subjective symptoms, objective endoscopy scores, days spent in hospital, courses of antibiotics, and pulmonary function tests (PFTs). RESULTS: Nineteen studies involving 586 patients were included in the review. There were four prospective cohort trials, and three were rated as good quality. There were no major complications attributable to ESS. There was consistent evidence in four cohort studies of improved sinonasal symptoms, including nasal obstruction, facial pain, headaches, rhinorrhea and olfaction. Three studies reported conflicting results in post-operative endoscopy scores. Three studies showed a decrease in days spent in hospital, and two showed a significant decrease in courses of intravenous antibiotics. A recent study, however, did not show a difference in either days spent in hospital or courses of antibiotics. Pulmonary function tests were not improved by ESS in six cohort trials, and one small study found significant improvement. A meta-analysis of FEV1 scores confirmed no significant difference. CONCLUSION: THE most consistent findings of this review were that ESS in patients with CF is safe, produces symptomatic benefit, and does not consistently improve PFTs. There were more conflicting results with regards to endoscopy scores, days spent in hospital, and courses of intravenous antibiotics. Future prospective studies, utilizing validated quality of life, symptom and endoscopy scales, are needed to further elucidate the role of ESS in the management of chronic rhinosinusitis in CF patients.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Meta-analysis · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.741
Threshold uncertainty score0.789

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0090.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.066
GPT teacher head0.305
Teacher spread0.238 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it