The Relationship Between Nasal Septal Deviation and Rhinosinusitis: A Systematic Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ImportanceNasal septal deviation (NSD) and rhinosinusitis (RS) are common conditions with overlapping symptoms, yet they require distinct treatment approaches. Clarifying their relationship is essential to guide preventative management strategies.ObjectiveTo examine the association between NSD and RS.DesignSystematic review following the PRISMA guidelines. Embase, MEDLINE, and Web of Science were searched from inception to January 2025.ParticipantsStudies were included if participants were adults (≥18 years); studies conducted exclusively in pediatric populations were excluded.Main Outcome MeasuresAssociation between NSD and RS based on prevalence, NSD severity, and mean nasal septal angle (NSA), as well as overall study quality and risk of bias.ResultsA total of 34 studies were included, of which 26 reported NSD and 8 reported RS as their primary outcome. Among the studies reporting on NSD, 17 assessed prevalence, of which 7 (41.2%) demonstrated an association with RS; 5 assessed severity, of which 2 (40.0%) demonstrated an association between moderate/severe NSD and RS; and 10 assessed mean NSA, of which 3 (30.0%) demonstrated an association with RS. All studies reporting on RS assessed prevalence, of which 4 (50.0%) demonstrated an association with NSD. Overall, 16/40 (40.0%) individual outcome measures indicated an association between NSD and RS. A risk of bias analysis identified 12/34 (35.3%) studies as low risk. Of these, 5/17 (29.4%) individual outcomes measures demonstrated an association between NSD and RS.ConclusionThe current body of evidence reveals an inconclusive relationship between NSD and RS. Variability in definitions, diagnostic criteria, and outcome measures, combined with insufficient control for bias, limit the ability to draw definitive conclusions.Relevance:We propose standardized reporting guidelines to ensure consistency across studies and enable more meaningful comparisons. Implementing this framework may ultimately support the development of preventative strategies to optimize patient outcomes.PROSPERO registration numberCRD42024514049.
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 | 0.008 | 0.035 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.008 | 0.007 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.009 | 0.010 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".