Impact of continued medical therapy in patients with refractory chronic rhinosinusitis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Patients with refractory chronic rhinosinusitis (RCRS) have persistent symptoms despite best medical therapy. Some evidence suggests continued medical therapy (CMT) is appropriate for patients with RCRS. The primary objective of this study was to evaluate the clinical impact of CMT in patients with RCRS who have significant reductions in baseline disease-specific quality of life (QoL) and would be considered candidates for endoscopic sinus surgery (ESS). METHODS: A prospective longitudinal observational study was undertaken between August 2011 and June 2013. INCLUSION CRITERIA: age >18 years, CRS defined by American Academy of Otolaryngology (AAO) adult sinusitis guidelines, failed medical therapy (defined by a 3-month minimum of topical intranasal steroid, minimum 7-day course of systemic corticosteroid, ± 2-week course of broad spectrum systemic antibiotic), and elected ESS. Primary outcomes were change in disease-specific QoL and endoscopic scores between enrolment and immediately prior to ESS. Secondary outcomes included medication consumption and work days missed. RESULTS: A total of 31 patients were enrolled. Following CMT for a mean of 7.1 months, there was an absolute worsening in mean 22-item Sino-Nasal Outcomes Test (SNOT-22) score between baseline and preoperative follow-up, 57.6 to 66.1, respectively (p = 0.006). There was a significant worsening of mean endoscopic score between baseline and preoperative follow-up, 6.9 to 7.7, respectively (p = 0.002). There was an increase in budesonide irrigations along with a reduction in use of topical nasal steroid sprays prior to ESS. Patients experienced a mean increase of 3.6 work days lost while receiving CMT (p = 0.023). CONCLUSION: Results from this study suggest that patients with RCRS who have significant reductions in baseline disease-specific QoL do not experience clinical improvement while receiving CMT.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".