Search

Background: 'Man flu' is a popular term to describe hypersensitivity to acute rhinosinusitis (ARS) in men. While this pop-cultural description may influence the social perspective of ARS, so far, no prospective observational data on the gender-specific natural development of ARS is available.Methods: Secondary data analyses were performed from the placebo arm of a prospective, interventional phase IV clinical trial. Objective measurement of ARS symptoms were assessed with the Major Symptom Score (MSS), a clinician-rated assessment tool. The Sino-Nasal Outcome Test-22 (SNOT-22) was used for symptom self-report. Repeated measures analysis of variance (ANOVA) with gender as a group variable were used to investigate changes in MMS and SNOT-22 total score and subscales over time.Results: While MMS scores did not differ at baseline, women showed a significantly greater reduction than men with a medium effect size (p = .040) over time. In the patient-reported symptom score, women showed a significantly higher symptom load at baseline (p = .038), but also a significantly faster subjective improvement of symptoms than men during the course of time with a medium effect size (p = .020). However, when separately assessing the SNOT-22 subscales, a significant time*gender effect was only found for emotional symptoms (p = .047). No gender effect was found for neither nasal, otological, or sleep symptoms (all p > .05).Discussion: Although a certain gender difference was found both in the clinician- as well as patient-rated ARS symptoms, the hypothesis of a 'man flu' should be disregarded. Gender differences in ARS symptomatology should be carefully evaluated without stigmatizing symptom distress based on gender perceptions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: The Sino-Nasal-Outcome-Test-22 (SNOT-22) represents the reference questionnaire to assess symptoms, health-related quality-of-life (HRQOL) and treatment-response in patients with chronic rhinosinusitis (CRS). The SNOT-22 has been validated for various languages, yet no validation is available for the German version. Thus, we provide a validation of the SNOT-22 for German.Methods: In this prospective observational study 139 CRS-patients and 36 control-participants were included. CRS-patients completed the German-SNOT-22 before treatment (T0) and four (T1), twelve (T2) and 48 weeks after inclusion (T3). At T0, Mackay-Naclerio-, Lund-Mackay- and Brief-Symptom-Inventory-18 (BSI-18) scores were collected as external reference for the German-SNOT-22 and its subscales. At T1, T2, and T3 health-transition-items (HTIs) were raised to explore responsivity. Control-participants completed the German-SNOT-22 at T0. Reliability (internal consistency, item-total correlation), validity (concurrent validity, discriminatory validity) and responsiveness (distribution- and anchor-based) were explored for the German-SNOT-22.Results: At T0, the mean German-SNOT-22 total-score for CRS patients was 38.0 (± 20.9) and responded to treatment (T1 = 26.3 ± 19.1; T2 = 25.8 ± 20.6; T3 = 20.5 ± 16.3). For control-participants, the mean total-score at T0 was 15.1 (±10.9). The German-SNOT-22 was reliable (excellent internal consistency α = 0.93; good overall item-total correlations r = 0.39-0.85), valid (significant correlations between Mackay-Naclerio-, Lund-Mackay- and BSI-18 scores, all r > 0.39, p < 0.01) and responsive (significant correlations between HTIs and mean change in German-SNOT-22 total-score F = 9.57, p < 0.001).Conclusion: The German-SNOT-22 validated here matches the original SNOT-22. It is a reliable, valid and responsive questionnaire to assess symptoms, HRQOL and treatment-response in CRS-patients. Good psychometric properties were observed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]