Endoscopic sinus surgery compared to continued medical therapy for patients with refractory chronic rhinosinusitis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The decision to continue medical therapy or recommend endoscopic sinus surgery (ESS) can be challenging in patients with refractory chronic rhinosinusitis (CRS). The objective of this study was to evaluate continued medical therapy vs ESS for patients with refractory CRS who have severe reductions in baseline disease-specific quality of life (QoL). METHODS: This was a prospective longitudinal crossover study between August 2011 and June 2013. All patients were >18 years old, diagnosed with CRS based on guideline recommendations, failed initial medical therapy and elected ESS. While waiting for ESS, all patients received continued medical therapy. The preoperative waiting period outcomes (continued medical therapy) were compared to the postoperative outcomes. The primary outcome was change in disease-specific QoL (22-item Sinonasal Outcome Test [SNOT-22]). Secondary outcomes were change in endoscopic grading (Lund-Kennedy score), medication consumption, and work days missed in the preceding 90 days. RESULTS: Thirty-one patients were enrolled. Mean baseline SNOT-22 score was 57.6. After a mean of 7.1 months of continued medical therapy, there was a worsening in SNOT-22 score (57.6 to 66.1; p = 0.006). After ESS, with a mean postoperative follow-up of 14.6 months, there was a significant improvement in SNOT-22 score (66.1 to 16.0; p < 0.001). There was also a significant improvement in endoscopic grading (p < 0.001) coupled with a reduction in both work days lost (p < 0.001) and medication consumption (p < 0.01). CONCLUSION: Results from the study suggest that ESS is a more effective intervention compared to continued medical therapy for patients with refractory CRS who have severe reductions in their baseline disease-specific QoL.
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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".