The validity of clinical guidelines and nasal endoscopy in the diagnosis of chronic rhinosinusitis—a prospective observational study

Mohd Abass Sheikh, Suhail Amin Patigaroo, Showkat A. Showkat, Manzoor A. Latoo, Rauf Hussain Rather
{"title":"The validity of clinical guidelines and nasal endoscopy in the diagnosis of chronic rhinosinusitis—a prospective observational study","authors":"Mohd Abass Sheikh, Suhail Amin Patigaroo, Showkat A. Showkat, Manzoor A. Latoo, Rauf Hussain Rather","doi":"10.1186/s43163-024-00644-y","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Chronic rhinosinusitis is a common disease entity seen by ENT surgeons as well as general practitioners all over the world. This study is aimed to evaluate and validate whether the clinical guideline symptoms (set by AAO-HNS 2015) alone and/or nasal endoscopic findings can predict the diagnosis of CRS, taking CT as the gold standard. A total of 118 patients with symptoms of chronic rhinosinusitis were taken. They were divided into two groups on the basis of whether they fulfilled the Guideline symptom criteria laid down by AAO-HNS in 2015 for diagnosing chronic rhinosinusitis. Each group underwent diagnostic nasal endoscopy (DNE), and patients with either purulence, edema in the middle meatus or ethmoid, and polyps in the nasal cavity or middle meatus were considered positive for DNE. A Lund-Mackay CT score of > 4 was considered diagnostic of CRS. Each group was analyzed separately. Sensitivity, specificity, and positive predictive value of guideline symptom with and without the addition of nasal endoscopy was recorded taking CT as the gold standard. Nasal obstruction was the most common seen in all cases (100%) followed by headache in 45 (38.1%), facial pain in 32 (27.1%), anterior nasal discharge in 28 (23.7%), decreased sense of smell in 22 (18.6%), and posterior nasal discharge in 19 (16.1%). Two-thirds of patients (78, 66.1%) fulfilled the clinical guideline symptoms criteria, and one-third of patients (40, 33.9%) did not fulfill the clinical guideline symptoms criteria. A positive finding on DNE was found in 59.3% (n = 70) of patients. More than half of patients (62, 52.5%) had mild grade on endoscopic examination, while only 8 (6.8%) had moderate grade, and none had severe grade. Guideline symptoms have a high sensitivity (80%) but a low specificity (50.94%) in the diagnosis of CRS, with a fair level of agreement with CT diagnosis (Kappa = 0.32). DNE has a moderate sensitivity (72.31%) but a low specificity (56.60%) in the diagnosis of CRS, with a fair level of agreement with CT diagnosis (Kappa = 0.29). Sensitivity and specificity were 80.77% and 57.69% respectively when guideline symptoms and DNE findings are taken in series. We conclude that neither Guideline Symptom Criteria nor DNE is independently sufficient enough to have a high diagnostic accuracy for CRS. Comparing the diagnostic efficiency among various modalities, we report that in patients who meet guideline symptom criteria for CRS, the addition of nasal endoscopy turned out to be a cost-effective diagnostic approach and improves the diagnostic accuracy of DNE for CRS reasonably, hence should be emphasized as a diagnostic tool in the evaluation of patients for CRS.","PeriodicalId":501131,"journal":{"name":"The Egyptian Journal of Otolaryngology","volume":"46 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-07-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"The Egyptian Journal of Otolaryngology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s43163-024-00644-y","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Chronic rhinosinusitis is a common disease entity seen by ENT surgeons as well as general practitioners all over the world. This study is aimed to evaluate and validate whether the clinical guideline symptoms (set by AAO-HNS 2015) alone and/or nasal endoscopic findings can predict the diagnosis of CRS, taking CT as the gold standard. A total of 118 patients with symptoms of chronic rhinosinusitis were taken. They were divided into two groups on the basis of whether they fulfilled the Guideline symptom criteria laid down by AAO-HNS in 2015 for diagnosing chronic rhinosinusitis. Each group underwent diagnostic nasal endoscopy (DNE), and patients with either purulence, edema in the middle meatus or ethmoid, and polyps in the nasal cavity or middle meatus were considered positive for DNE. A Lund-Mackay CT score of > 4 was considered diagnostic of CRS. Each group was analyzed separately. Sensitivity, specificity, and positive predictive value of guideline symptom with and without the addition of nasal endoscopy was recorded taking CT as the gold standard. Nasal obstruction was the most common seen in all cases (100%) followed by headache in 45 (38.1%), facial pain in 32 (27.1%), anterior nasal discharge in 28 (23.7%), decreased sense of smell in 22 (18.6%), and posterior nasal discharge in 19 (16.1%). Two-thirds of patients (78, 66.1%) fulfilled the clinical guideline symptoms criteria, and one-third of patients (40, 33.9%) did not fulfill the clinical guideline symptoms criteria. A positive finding on DNE was found in 59.3% (n = 70) of patients. More than half of patients (62, 52.5%) had mild grade on endoscopic examination, while only 8 (6.8%) had moderate grade, and none had severe grade. Guideline symptoms have a high sensitivity (80%) but a low specificity (50.94%) in the diagnosis of CRS, with a fair level of agreement with CT diagnosis (Kappa = 0.32). DNE has a moderate sensitivity (72.31%) but a low specificity (56.60%) in the diagnosis of CRS, with a fair level of agreement with CT diagnosis (Kappa = 0.29). Sensitivity and specificity were 80.77% and 57.69% respectively when guideline symptoms and DNE findings are taken in series. We conclude that neither Guideline Symptom Criteria nor DNE is independently sufficient enough to have a high diagnostic accuracy for CRS. Comparing the diagnostic efficiency among various modalities, we report that in patients who meet guideline symptom criteria for CRS, the addition of nasal endoscopy turned out to be a cost-effective diagnostic approach and improves the diagnostic accuracy of DNE for CRS reasonably, hence should be emphasized as a diagnostic tool in the evaluation of patients for CRS.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
临床指南和鼻内窥镜在诊断慢性鼻窦炎中的有效性--一项前瞻性观察研究
慢性鼻炎是世界各地耳鼻喉外科医生和全科医生常见的一种疾病。本研究旨在评估和验证以 CT 为金标准,仅凭临床指南症状(AAO-HNS 2015 规定)和/或鼻内窥镜检查结果能否预测 CRS 的诊断。研究共选取了 118 名有慢性鼻炎症状的患者。根据他们是否符合 AAO-HNS 于 2015 年制定的慢性鼻炎诊断指南症状标准,将他们分为两组。每组患者均接受诊断性鼻内镜检查(DNE),鼻腔或中鼻道出现脓涕、中鼻道或乙状结肠水肿、鼻腔或中鼻道息肉的患者均被视为 DNE 阳性。Lund-Mackay CT 评分大于 4 分可诊断为 CRS。每组分别进行分析。以 CT 为金标准,记录了鼻内窥镜检查和未进行鼻内窥镜检查的指导症状的敏感性、特异性和阳性预测值。所有病例中最常见的症状是鼻塞(100%),其次是头痛 45 例(38.1%)、面部疼痛 32 例(27.1%)、前鼻涕 28 例(23.7%)、嗅觉减退 22 例(18.6%)和后鼻涕 19 例(16.1%)。三分之二的患者(78 人,66.1%)符合临床指南的症状标准,三分之一的患者(40 人,33.9%)不符合临床指南的症状标准。59.3%的患者(70 人)在 DNE 中发现阳性结果。超过一半的患者(62 人,52.5%)在内窥镜检查中为轻度,只有 8 人(6.8%)为中度,无重度患者。在诊断 CRS 时,指南症状的灵敏度较高(80%),但特异性较低(50.94%),与 CT 诊断的一致性尚可(Kappa = 0.32)。DNE 诊断 CRS 的灵敏度中等(72.31%),但特异性较低(56.60%),与 CT 诊断的吻合程度一般(Kappa = 0.29)。如果将指南症状和 DNE 结果进行串联,敏感性和特异性分别为 80.77% 和 57.69%。我们的结论是,无论是指南症状标准还是 DNE,都不足以独立地对 CRS 具有较高的诊断准确性。通过比较各种方法的诊断效率,我们发现,对于符合 CRS 指南症状标准的患者,增加鼻内窥镜检查是一种经济有效的诊断方法,并能合理提高 DNE 对 CRS 的诊断准确性,因此应将其作为评估 CRS 患者的一种诊断工具加以重视。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Betahistine in the treatment of peripheral vertigo: an evidence-based review Age as an important variable that affects auditory and language results after cochlear implant Vocal dysfunction following thyroid surgery: a multidimensional subjective and objective study Dysgeusia and paresthesia following suspension microlaryngoscopy: review and recommendations for risk reduction A study of borderline cases of velopharyngeal insufficiency using cephalometry and nasofibroscopy
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1