Search

Objectives: Recently, a set of consensus criteria and near‐consensus criteria for the evaluation of chronic rhinosinusitis (CRS) disease control was identified by an international multidisciplinary panel of key stakeholders. The objective of this study is to evaluate patient perspectives on these disease control criteria. Methods: This is a qualitative phenomenological study using constant comparative methodology. Twenty‐one one‐on‐one interviews, ranging from 6 to 15 min and based on a standardized semi‐structured script, with CRS patients from diverse backgrounds were performed. The authors analyzed transcripts of the interviews to identify recurrent themes in patient responses. Conclusions were drawn based on these themes. Results: All participants agreed with the consensus criteria (overall symptom severity, nasal obstruction severity, patients' self‐assessed CRS control, and need for CRS‐related oral corticosteroids), and most participants agreed with near‐consensus criteria (nasal endoscopy, smell loss and nasal drainage severities, impairment of day‐to‐day activities, and overall quality of life) identified by the international multidisciplinary panel. Some patients disagreed with inclusion of smell loss due to common etiologies—such as post‐viral or iatrogenic causes—that would not necessarily be an indicator of active sinonasal inflammation. One theme that emerged was the need for a facial pain/pressure criterion to be added. Conclusions: CRS patients overwhelmingly affirmed recently described consensus and near‐consensus criteria for CRS disease control with the caveat that a question asking about facial pain/pressure should be included as well. Recently, identified consensus criteria for CRS disease control should be interpreted within the context of patient perspectives. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: To identify predictors of chronic rhinosinusitis (CRS) in patients presenting with the chief complaint of nasal allergies. Study Design: Cross‐sectional study. Setting: Tertiary care, academic center. Methods: Clinical and demographic characteristics were collected from participants who were patients presenting with the chief complaint of nasal allergies. From all participants, a 22‐item Sinonasal Outcome Test (SNOT‐22) was collected, and a modified Lund‐Kennedy endoscopy score was calculated from nasal endoscopy. Association was sought between having CRS and variables of clinical and demographic characteristics, SNOT‐22, and endoscopy score. Results: A total of 219 patients were recruited and 91.3% were diagnosed with allergic rhinitis; 45.2% were also diagnosed with CRS. Approximately half of the patients with CRS reported no intranasal corticosteroid usage. Having CRS was associated with male sex (odds ratio [OR] = 2.29, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.30‐4.04, P =.004), endoscopy score (OR = 1.96, 95% CI: 1.59‐2.42, P <.001), and the SNOT‐22 nasal subdomain score (OR = 1.07, 95% CI: 1.03‐1.11, P =.001) related to SNOT‐22 items: "need to blow nose," "thick nasal discharge," "sense of taste/smell," and "blockage/congestion of nose." At least moderate (item score ≥3) "blockage/congestion of nose" or "thick nasal discharge," mild "need to blow nose" (item score ≥2) or very mild decreased "sense of taste/smell" (item score ≥1), and any nasal endoscopy findings (endoscopy score ≥1) were statistically significant predictors of CRS. Conclusion: Moderate or more severe nasal obstruction or discharge symptoms, any decreased sense of smell/taste, or positive nasal endoscopy findings in patients believing they have allergic rhinitis should prompt further evaluation of CRS to avoid delays in treatment. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: Best practices for calculation of the minimal clinically important difference (MCID) of outcome measures include the use of complementary methodologies (broadly classified as anchor‐based and distribution‐based) and reporting of the MCID's predictive ability. We sought to determine MCID calculation and reporting patterns within the otolaryngology literature. Methods: A systematic search strategy of Embase, PubMed, and Web of Science databases was developed and implemented to identify studies reporting the determination of an MCID for an outcome measure. Studies specifically within the otolaryngology literature (defined as journals classified as "otorhinolaryngology" in the Journal Citation Reports database) were included. All those journals were additionally searched for relevant articles. Results: There were 35 articles that met the inclusion criteria. Of these studies, 88.6% reported MCID of a patient‐reported outcome measure and the remainder were for objective outcome measurements. Anchor‐based methods were used by 82.9% of studies and distribution‐based methods were used by 68.6% of studies. Of all studies, 31.4% utilized anchor‐based methods alone, 17.1% utilized distribution‐based methods alone, and 51.4% used both methods. Only 25.7% of studies reported the sensitivity (median: 60.8%, range: 40.5%–86.7%) and specificity (median: 80.4%, range: 63.5%–88.0%) of the MCID to detect patients experiencing clinically important change. Conclusion: Deviation from best practices in MCID calculation and reporting exists within the otolaryngology literature, with almost half of all studies only using one method of MCID calculation and almost three‐quarters not reporting the predictive ability (sensitivity/specificity) of the calculated MCID. When predictive ability is reported, however, MCIDs appear to be more specific than sensitive. Level of Evidence: NA Laryngoscope, 134:2059–2069, 2024 [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: To determine factors associated with social media usage for finding a doctor or seeking medical advice among otolaryngology patients. Methods: Cross‐sectional study of 361 patients visiting our clinics. All participants were asked if they were aware social media may be used to find doctors and if they had ever done so, and also if they were aware social media could be used to get advice about a medical condition or its treatment and if they had ever done so. Demographic characteristics were examined for association with affirmative answers to these questions. Results: Facebook was the most used social media platform with 50.7% using Facebook daily. Over 50% of participants were aware social media could be used to find a doctor or seek medical advice. Daily use of Facebook was associated with using social media for finding a doctor (OR = 2.57, 95%CI: 1.41–4.67, p = 0.002) and seeking medical advice (OR = 1.72, 95%CI: 1.09–2.71, p = 0.020). Having Medicare was associated with using social media to find a doctor (OR = 2.20, 95%CI: 1.15–4.21, p = 0.017), whereas Medicaid was associated with using social media for medical advice (OR = 1.99, 95%CI: 1.08–3.67, p = 0.027). Conclusion: A majority of otolaryngology patients may be aware of health care applications of social media, with Facebook being the dominant platform, and Medicare insurance identifying patients who may most use social media in this manner. There is also an indication that social determinants of health, as reflected by Medicaid insurance, may be associated with using social media to seek medical advice. Level of Evidence: NA Laryngoscope, 133:2116–2121, 2023 [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]