Postoperative care for Samter's triad patients undergoing endoscopic sinus surgery: A double-blinded, randomized controlled trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES/HYPOTHESIS: Evidence is lacking to guide the postoperative management of Samter's triad patients with chronic rhinosinusitis with polyposis (CRSwP) undergoing endoscopic sinus surgery (ESS). The purpose of this study was to compare three different standardized medication regimens prescribed to these patients after ESS. STUDY DESIGN: Three-arm, randomized, double-blinded, controlled trial. METHODS: Patients with Samter's triad undergoing ESS were postoperatively randomized into three medication regimens, those being saline irrigation alone (control group A), saline irrigation plus separate budesonide nasal spray (group B), and saline irrigation mixed with budesonide nasal spray (group C). Outcome measures were Sino-Nasal Outcome Test scores, Lund-Mackay computed tomography scores, and Lund-Kennedy endoscopic scores taken at preoperative baseline, and then at 6 months and 1 year postoperatively. Side effect profiles were also measured (adrenocorticotropic hormone blood level ranges and intraocular pressure at the same interval points). Analysis of variance and χ(2) analyses were conducted using a Bonferroni correction method and routine descriptive statistics. Inter- and intragroup comparisons were made. RESULTS: Sixty subjects were recruited. All groups were equivalent at baseline in all outcomes. All intragroup analyses showed statistically and clinically significant improvement in disease status as compared to baseline (P < .0167), with a sustained but lessened improvement at 1 year. However, no statistically or clinically significant differences were observed between groups at any time point (P > .05). There was no treatment effect noted. CONCLUSIONS: In this study, nasal steroids did not confer any additional benefit over saline alone as post-ESS care for the Samter's triad CRSwP patient population.
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 | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
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".