Cost of adult chronic rhinosinusitis: A systematic review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE/STUDY DESIGN: The objective of this systematic review was to summarize the literature evaluating the costs associated with the management of adult chronic rhinosinusitis (CRS) using Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. METHODS: Two separate authors systematically searched eight commonly used medical databases. Included articles were categorized into seven domains: 1) overall healthcare cost (direct and indirect), 2) resource utilization, 3) medical management strategies, 4) overall procedure cost of endoscopic sinus surgery (ESS), 5) intraoperative technologies, 6) ESS litigation, and 7) CRS diagnostics. To maintain a common currency for comparison, all costs were converted to 2014 United States dollars (USD) using an inflation calculator in September 2014. RESULTS: Forty-four studies were identified for inclusion. The range for overall CRS-related healthcare costs was $6.9 to $9.9 billion 2014 USD per year. Indirect costs were estimated as $13 billion 2014 USD per year. Annual medication costs prior to ESS ranged between $1,547 and $2,700 2014 USD per patient, with a uniform reduction in costs after ESS. The overall US cost of outpatient ESS ranged from $8,200 to $10,500 2014 USD per case. The overall annual economic burden of CRS in the United States was estimated to be $22 billion 2014 USD (direct and indirect costs). CONCLUSION: The results of this systematic review have demonstrated substantial direct and indirect costs associated with the management of adult CRS. Future research should continue to improve the costing data, which can be used to improve the value of care provided for this chronic inflammatory disease.
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.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.009 | 0.046 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.009 | 0.013 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.012 | 0.011 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".