MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4412786626 · doi:10.1002/ohn.1342

Executive Summary of the Clinical Practice Guideline on Adult Sinusitis Update

2025· article· en· W4412786626 on OpenAlexaff
Spencer C. Payne, Margo McKenna, Jennifer Buckley, Maria Colandrea, Anthony W. Chow, Kara Y. Detwiller, Angela M. Donaldson, Marc G. Dubin, Sandra A. Finestone, Peter Filip, Ayesha N. Khalid, Anju T. Peters, Richard M. Rosenfeld, Zarah Akrami, Nui Dhepyasuwan

Bibliographic record

VenueOtolaryngology · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicPatient-Provider Communication in Healthcare
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGuidelineMedicineOtorhinolaryngologySinusitisIntensive care medicineRhinologyMedical physicsSurgeryPathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract The American Academy of Otolaryngology–Head and Neck Surgery Foundation has published the updated “Clinical Practice Guideline: Adult Sinusitis” as a supplement to this issue of Otolaryngology–Head and Neck Surgery. To assist in implementing the guideline recommendations, this article summarizes the rationale, purpose, and key action statements. The 14 developed recommendations address diagnostic accuracy for adult rhinosinusitis, the appropriate use of ancillary tests to confirm diagnosis and guide management (including radiography, nasal endoscopy, computed tomography, and testing for allergy and immune function), and the judicious use of systemic and topical therapy. Emphasis was also placed on identifying multiple chronic conditions that would modify management of rhinosinusitis, including asthma, cystic fibrosis, immunocompromised state, and ciliary dyskinesia. An updated guideline is needed as a result of new clinical trials, new systematic reviews, and the lack of consumer participation in the initial guideline development group. Methods This executive summary describes the guideline developed using the 55‐page protocol published as the American Academy of Otolaryngology–Head and Neck Surgery Foundation's Clinical Practice Guideline Development Manual (3rd edition), which summarizes the methodology for assessments of current data, topic prioritization, development of key action statements, application of value judgements, and related procedures. The guideline update group represented the disciplines of otolaryngology–head and neck surgery, infectious disease, family medicine, allergy and immunology, advanced practice nursing, and a consumer advocate. Differences from Prior Guideline This clinical practice guideline is as an update, and replacement, for an earlier guideline published in 2015 by the American Academy of Otolaryngology–Head and Neck Surgery Foundation (AAO‐HNSF).1 An update was planned for 5 years after the initial publication date and was further necessitated by new primary studies and systematic reviews that might suggest a need for modifying clinically important recommendations.2 Changes in content and methodology from the prior guideline include the following: New evidence from 14 guidelines, 194 systematic reviews, and 133 RCTs. Emphasis on patient education and counseling with new explanatory tables. Expanded action statement profiles to explicitly state quality improvement opportunities, confidence in the evidence, intentional vagueness, and differences of opinion. Enhanced external review process to include public comment and journal peer review. New algorithm to clarify decision making, watchful waiting, action statement relationships. Extension of watchful waiting (without antibiotic therapy) as an initial management strategy to all patients with uncomplicated acute bacterial rhinosinusitis (ABRS) regardless of severity, not just patients with “mild” illness (prior guideline). Clarified the recommended timeline for the diagnosis, conservative management and antibiotic treatment of ABRS. Change in recommendation to first‐line antibiotic therapy for ABRS amoxicillin, with or without clavulanate, from amoxicillin alone (prior guideline). Addition of aspirin exacerbated respiratory disease (AERD) as a chronic condition that modifies management of chronic rhinosinusitis (CRS). Three new key action statements on managing CRS that focus on the use of biologics (recommend against when patients do not have polyps and educate patients about them when they do) and a recommendation against the empiric use of antibiotics for CRS solely as a third‐party requirement for surgery or imaging.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.014
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.070
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.032
Threshold uncertainty score0.108

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0140.070
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.004
Bibliometrics0.0100.011
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0050.004
Open science0.0040.002
Research integrity0.0070.008
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0320.023

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 head0.101
GPT teacher head0.467
Teacher spread0.366 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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".

Quick stats

Citations4
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueOtolaryngologySame topicPatient-Provider Communication in HealthcareFrench-language works237,207