Preoperative concerns of patients undergoing endoscopic sinus surgery
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Patient-centered care is recognized as being fundamental to successful medical practice. The effectiveness of patient-centered care has classically been measured by posttreatment outcomes, such as patient compliance and psychosocial responses. Systematic assessment of patient concerns prior to treatment has been limited, to date. Endoscopic sinus surgery (ESS) is an elective procedure for chronic rhinosinusitis that carries a clear, defined set of risks. The objective of this prospective observational study was to determine the concerns of patients undergoing ESS for chronic rhinosinusitis. METHODS: A total of 180 patients undergoing ESS for chronic rhinosinusitis with or without polyposis were recruited at 2 Canadian tertiary care centers. They completed a validated survey assessing their concerns regarding the risks and outcomes of surgery. Data was analyzed using descriptive statistics and analysis of variance. RESULTS: Patients had a low degree of concern prior to undergoing surgery (overall score 2.8/9), though individual variability existed. Subjects felt the greatest level of concern regarding potential need for revision surgery as well as the wait time for surgery. Patients were least concerned about psychological factors (mean = 1.8/9). No differences with respect to age or gender were identified. Mean scores for cerebrospinal fluid leak and orbital injury were 3 and 3.2, respectively. CONCLUSION: Patients' level of concern prior to undergoing elective surgery is generally low. Patients' areas of greatest concern may not align with those perceived by the physician. This study provides insight into patient concerns prior to undergoing elective sinus surgery and emphasizes the importance of the patient-centered approach to care.
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 | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".