When are we operating for chronic rhinosinusitis? A systematic review of maximal medical therapy protocols prior to endoscopic sinus surgery
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Endoscopic sinus surgery (ESS) is considered a therapeutic option after failure of maximal medical therapy (MMT) for chronic rhinosinusitis (CRS). There is currently no consensus on the definition of MMT. The objective of this systematic review is to describe the various MMT criteria employed prior to considering ESS. METHODS: A systematic review was performed using the 2009 Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. Inclusion criteria were adults with CRS based on guideline diagnostic criteria, enrolled to undergo ESS, and study publication within the last 5 years (January 1, 2009, to December 30, 2014). Studies were excluded if the study population included non-CRS indications for ESS. Primary outcome was the MMT criteria employed prior to considering a patient a candidate for ESS. A subgroup analysis was performed based on polyp status. RESULTS: Of 387 reviewed studies, 21% reported MMT criteria. When reported, criteria included topical nasal corticosteroids (91% of studies) for a mean of 8 ± 8 weeks, oral antibiotics (89%) for 23 ± 8 days, systemic corticosteroids (61%) for 18 ± 12 days, saline irrigations (39%), oral antihistamines (11%), oral mucolytics (10%), and topical/oral decongestants (10%). CONCLUSION: A minority of studies report MMT criteria used as the indication for ESS. When reported, the majority included an 8-week course of topical intranasal corticosteroids and 3-week course of oral antibiotics. Use of systemic corticosteroids did not differ based on polyp status. Because of variation in current MMT criteria, there is a need to develop standardized indications for ESS that will work to improve the appropriateness of care for patients with.
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 | 0.020 | 0.087 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.008 | 0.012 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| 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".