MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2556542133 · doi:10.1002/alr.21872

Surgical therapy vs continued medical therapy for medically refractory chronic rhinosinusitis: a systematic review and meta‐analysis

2016· review· en· W2556542133 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Forum of Allergy & Rhinology · 2016
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSinusitis and nasal conditions
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
FundersUniversity of CalgaryMedical University of South Carolina
KeywordsMedicineMeta-analysisChronic rhinosinusitisRefractory (planetary science)Quality of life (healthcare)Adverse effectMedical therapySystematic reviewEndoscopyMEDLINESurgeryPhysical therapyInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: The currently accepted treatment paradigm of treating chronic rhinosinusitis (CRS) first with appropriate medical therapy (AMT) and then with surgery if patients are refractory to AMT, has been criticized for lack of evidence. The objective of this study was to reassess the literature and establish the highest level of evidence possible regarding further management of CRS patients refractory to AMT. METHODS: This study was a systematic review (SR) with meta-analysis (MA). Adult CRS patients who received AMT and then underwent either medical or surgical therapy in moderate to high level prospective studies were included. Outcomes assessed were disease-specific quality of life (QOL), nasal endoscopy, health-state utility, missed work days, change in cardinal symptoms of CRS, economic impact, and adverse events. RESULTS: A total of 970 manuscripts were identified; 6 studies were ultimately included in the SR with 5 included in the MA. Compared to continued medical therapy, endoscopic sinus surgery (ESS) significantly improved patient-based QOL scores (p < 0.00001) and nasal endoscopy scores (p < 0.00001). Difference in missed work days depended heavily on patient choice of intervention. Unpooled analysis showed improvements in olfaction, health utility scores, and cost-effectiveness. CONCLUSION: On meta-analysis, for CRS patients refractory to AMT, ESS significantly improves objective endoscopic scoring outcomes vs continued medical therapy alone. In patients with refractory CRS who have significant reductions in baseline QOL, ESS results in significant improvements. Continued medical therapy appears to maintain outcomes in patients with less severe baseline QOL. Unpooled analysis demonstrates improvement in health utility, olfaction, and cost-effectiveness following ESS compared to continued medical therapy alone, in medically refractory CRS.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Meta-analysis · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.806
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0080.004
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.044
GPT teacher head0.375
Teacher spread0.331 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it