6
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      A systematic review to examine the relationship between objective and patient‐reported outcome measures in sinonasal disorders: recommendations for use in research and clinical practice

      review-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Background

          Common sinonasal disorders include chronic rhinosinusitis (CRS), allergic rhinitis (AR), and a deviated nasal septum (DNS), which often coexist with shared common symptoms including nasal obstruction, olfactory dysfunction, and rhinorrhea. Various objective outcome measures and patient‐reported outcome measures (PROMs) are used to assess disease severity; however, there is limited evidence in the literature on the correlation between them. This systematic review aims to examine the relationship between them and provide recommendations.

          Methods

          A search of MEDLINE and EMBASE identified studies quantifying correlations between objective outcome measures and PROMs for the sinonasal conditions using a narrative synthesis.

          Results

          In total, 59 studies met inclusion criteria. For nasal obstruction, rhinomanometry shows a lack of correlation whereas peak nasal inspiratory flow (PNIF) shows the strongest correlation with PROMs ( r > 0.5). The Sniffin’ Stick test shows a stronger correlation with PROMs ( r > 0.5) than the University of Pennsylvania Smell Identification Test (UPSIT) ( r < 0.5). Computed tomography (CT) sinus scores show little evidence of correlation with PROMs and nasal endoscopic ratings (weak correlation, r < 0.5).

          Conclusion

          Overall, objective outcome measures and PROMs assessing sinonasal symptoms are poorly correlated, and we recommend that objective outcome measures be used with validated PROMs depending on the setting. PNIF should be used in routine clinical practice for nasal obstruction; rhinomanometry and acoustic rhinometry may be useful in research. The Sniffin’ Sticks test is recommended for olfactory dysfunction with UPSIT as an alternative. CT scores should be excluded as a routine CRS outcome measure, and endoscopic scores should be used in combination with PROMs until further research is conducted.

          Related collections

          Most cited references109

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate healthcare interventions: explanation and elaboration

          Systematic reviews and meta-analyses are essential to summarise evidence relating to efficacy and safety of healthcare interventions accurately and reliably. The clarity and transparency of these reports, however, are not optimal. Poor reporting of systematic reviews diminishes their value to clinicians, policy makers, and other users. Since the development of the QUOROM (quality of reporting of meta-analysis) statement—a reporting guideline published in 1999—there have been several conceptual, methodological, and practical advances regarding the conduct and reporting of systematic reviews and meta-analyses. Also, reviews of published systematic reviews have found that key information about these studies is often poorly reported. Realising these issues, an international group that included experienced authors and methodologists developed PRISMA (preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses) as an evolution of the original QUOROM guideline for systematic reviews and meta-analyses of evaluations of health care interventions. The PRISMA statement consists of a 27-item checklist and a four-phase flow diagram. The checklist includes items deemed essential for transparent reporting of a systematic review. In this explanation and elaboration document, we explain the meaning and rationale for each checklist item. For each item, we include an example of good reporting and, where possible, references to relevant empirical studies and methodological literature. The PRISMA statement, this document, and the associated website (www.prisma-statement.org/) should be helpful resources to improve reporting of systematic reviews and meta-analyses.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            European Position Paper on Rhinosinusitis and Nasal Polyps 2020

            The European Position Paper on Rhinosinusitis and Nasal Polyps 2020 is the update of similar evidence based position papers published in 2005 and 2007 and 2012. The core objective of the EPOS2020 guideline is to provide revised, up-to-date and clear evidence-based recommendations and integrated care pathways in ARS and CRS. EPOS2020 provides an update on the literature published and studies undertaken in the eight years since the EPOS2012 position paper was published and addresses areas not extensively covered in EPOS2012 such as paediatric CRS and sinus surgery. EPOS2020 also involves new stakeholders, including pharmacists and patients, and addresses new target users who have become more involved in the management and treatment of rhinosinusitis since the publication of the last EPOS document, including pharmacists, nurses, specialised care givers and indeed patients themselves, who employ increasing self-management of their condition using over the counter treatments. The document provides suggestions for future research in this area and offers updated guidance for definitions and outcome measurements in research in different settings. EPOS2020 contains chapters on definitions and classification where we have defined a large number of terms and indicated preferred terms. A new classification of CRS into primary and secondary CRS and further division into localized and diffuse disease, based on anatomic distribution is proposed. There are extensive chapters on epidemiology and predisposing factors, inflammatory mechanisms, (differential) diagnosis of facial pain, allergic rhinitis, genetics, cystic fibrosis, aspirin exacerbated respiratory disease, immunodeficiencies, allergic fungal rhinosinusitis and the relationship between upper and lower airways. The chapters on paediatric acute and chronic rhinosinusitis are totally rewritten. All available evidence for the management of acute rhinosinusitis and chronic rhinosinusitis with or without nasal polyps in adults and children is systematically reviewed and integrated care pathways based on the evidence are proposed. Despite considerable increases in the amount of quality publications in recent years, a large number of practical clinical questions remain. It was agreed that the best way to address these was to conduct a Delphi exercise . The results have been integrated into the respective sections. Last but not least, advice for patients and pharmacists and a new list of research needs are included. The full document can be downloaded for free on the website of this journal: http://www.rhinologyjournal.com.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              EPOS 2012: European position paper on rhinosinusitis and nasal polyps 2012. A summary for otorhinolaryngologists

              The European Position Paper on Rhinosinusitis and Nasal Polyps 2012 is the update of similar evidence based position papers published in 2005 and 2007. The document contains chapters on definitions and classification, we now also proposed definitions for difficult to treat rhinosinusitis, control of disease and better definitions for rhinosinusitis in children. More emphasis is placed on the diagnosis and treatment of acute rhinosinusitis. Throughout the document the terms chronic rhinosinusitis without nasal polyps (CRSsNP) and chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyps (CRSwNP) are used to further point out differences in pathophysiology and treatment of these two entities. There are extensive chapters on epidemiology and predisposing factors, inflammatory mechanisms, (differential) diagnosis of facial pain, genetics, cystic fibrosis, aspirin exacerbated respiratory disease, immunodeficiencies, allergic fungal rhinosinusitis and the relationship between upper and lower airways. The chapters on paediatric acute and chronic rhinosinusitis are totally rewritten. Last but not least all available evidence for management of acute rhinosinusitis and chronic rhinosinusitis with or without nasal polyps in adults and children is analyzed and presented and management schemes based on the evidence are proposed. This executive summary for otorhinolaryngologists focuses on the most important changes and issues for otorhinolaryngologists. The full document can be downloaded for free on the website of this journal: http://www.rhinologyjournal.com.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                nganhta@doctors.org.uk
                Journal
                Int Forum Allergy Rhinol
                Int Forum Allergy Rhinol
                10.1002/(ISSN)2042-6984
                ALR
                International Forum of Allergy & Rhinology
                John Wiley and Sons Inc. (Hoboken )
                2042-6976
                2042-6984
                08 January 2021
                May 2021
                : 11
                : 5 ( doiID: 10.1002/alr.v11.5 )
                : 910-923
                Affiliations
                [ 1 ] Norwich Medical School University of East Anglia Norwich UK
                [ 2 ] ENT Department East Suffolk and North Essex NHS Foundation Trust Colchester UK
                [ 3 ] ENT Department James Paget University Hospital NHS Foundation Trust Great Yarmouth UK
                Author notes
                [*] [* ]Correspondence to: Ngan Hong Ta, MBBS, Norwich Medical School, University of East Anglia, Norwich, UK; e‐mail: nganhta@ 123456doctors.org.uk

                Author information
                https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8747-5329
                https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1125-3236
                Article
                ALR22744
                10.1002/alr.22744
                8248036
                33417297
                89248a65-d799-4a48-9fdf-d477a60234d5
                © 2020 The Authors. International Forum of Allergy & Rhinology published by Wiley Periodicals LLC on behalf of American Academy of Otolaryngic Allergy and American Rhinologic Society

                This is an open access article under the terms of the http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/ License, which permits use and distribution in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited, the use is non‐commercial and no modifications or adaptations are made.

                History
                : 01 November 2020
                : 10 January 2020
                : 12 November 2020
                Page count
                Figures: 1, Tables: 5, Pages: 14, Words: 9548
                Categories
                Review Article
                Review Articles
                Custom metadata
                2.0
                May 2021
                Converter:WILEY_ML3GV2_TO_JATSPMC version:6.0.2 mode:remove_FC converted:01.07.2021

                chronic rhinosinusitis,rhinitis,allergic rhinitis,olfactory test,mucociliary clearance,patient‐reported outcome measures,snot‐22

                Comments

                Comment on this article