Emotional Effects of Nasal Packing Measured by the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale in Patients Following Nasal Surgery
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The aim of this study was to test the validity of the Hospital Anxiety and Depression (HAD) Scale in patients who underwent nasal surgery as a method of screening for emotional disorders during their hospital stay. The study group consisted of 50 adult patients (29 male, 21 female) who underwent nasal surgery for different reasons, such as chronic sinusitis, nasal polyposis, and nasal septal deviation. Functional endoscopic sinus surgery and/or septoplasty were managed in these patients, and all of the patients had nasal packing applied bilaterally for 2 days. The HAD Scale was given to all of the patients 1 day before surgery and 1 day after surgery, with anterior nasal packing bilaterally during the hospital stay. The anxiety and depression levels of the male group were under the cutoff points. For the female group, the depression levels were under the cutoff points, and the anxiety levels were high in the preoperative period and decreased after the operation. Anxiety and depression levels in the pre- and postoperative periods for the male and female groups were analyzed by Paired t-test. No statistically significant result was found (p > .05). It was concluded that, for patients well informed about nasal packing and hospital conditions, nasal packing may be used safely, without any psychological disturbance. The HAD Scale should be a more useful screening method to diagnose emotional disorders, especially in patients who are hospitalized for a long time.
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 | 0.000 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".