Endoscopic sinus surgery in patients with cystic fibrosis: a systematic review and meta-analysis of pulmonary function
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction: The role of endoscopic sinus surgery (ESS) in patients with cystic fibrosis (CF) is not clearly defined. Objective: TO perform a systematic review of subjective and objective outcomes of ESS in CF. Methods: A systematic review was performed using the keywords 'sinusitis,' 'sinus surgery,' 'nasal polyps' and 'cystic fibrosis.' The quality of papers was assessed using the NICE scoring scale. Outcomes included safety, subjective symptoms, objective endoscopy scores, days spent in hospital, courses of antibiotics, and pulmonary function tests (PFTs). Results: Nineteen studies involving 586 patients were included in the review. There were four prospective cohort trials, and three were rated as good quality. There were no major complications attributable to ESS. There was consistent evidence in four cohort studies of improved sinonasal symptoms, including nasal obstruction, facial pain, headaches, rhinorrhea and olfaction. Three studies reported conflicting results in post-operative endoscopy scores. Three studies showed a decrease in days spent in hospital, and two showed a significant decrease in courses of intravenous antibiotics. A recent study, however, did not show a difference in either days spent in hospital or courses of antibiotics. Pulmonary function tests were not improved by ESS in six cohort trials, and one small study found significant improvement. A meta-analysis of FEV1 scores confirmed no significant difference. Conclusion: THE most consistent findings of this review were that ESS in patients with CF is safe, produces symptomatic benefit, and does not consistently improve PFTs. There were more conflicting results with regards to endoscopy scores, days spent in hospital, and courses of intravenous antibiotics. Future prospective studies, utilizing validated quality of life, symptom and endoscopy scales, are needed to further elucidate the role of ESS in the management of chronic rhinosinusitis in CF patients.
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 | 0.011 | 0.030 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.015 | 0.022 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| 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".