Cited by 48Sinusitis and nasal conditionsHealth Systems, Economic Evaluations, Quality of LifeNasal Surgery and Airway Studies

Health utility outcomes in patients undergoing medical management for chronic rhinosinusitis: a prospective multiinstitutional study

Open access
Luk, Lauren J., Steele, Toby O., Mace, Jess C., Soler, Zachary M., Rudmik, Luke, Smith, Timothy L.·2015·International Forum of Allergy & Rhinology

Abstract

Background: A health utility value represents an individual's preference for living in a specific health state and is used in cost‐utility analyses. This study investigates the impact of continuing medical therapy on health utility outcomes in patients with chronic rhinosinusitis (CRS). Methods: The Medical Outcomes Study Short Form‐6D (SF‐6D) questionnaire was administered to patients prospectively enrolled in a longitudinal study examining treatment outcomes for CRS. Patients were prescribed robust, initial medical therapy and then elected to continue with medical therapy (n = 40) or undergo endoscopic sinus surgery (ESS), followed by medical therapy (n = 152). Patients observed through treatment crossover to ESS were also evaluated (n = 20). Health utility values (SF‐6D) were generated at baseline, 6‐months, and 12‐months follow‐up for both cohorts and evaluated using repeated measures analysis of variance (ANOVA). Results: Treatment crossover patients were found to have a significantly higher prevalence of previous sinus surgery compared to medical management (χ 2 = 6.91; p = 0.009) and surgical intervention (χ 2 = 8.11; p = 0.004) subgroups. Mean baseline utility value for the medical therapy cohort was significantly better compared to the ESS cohort (mean ± standard deviation; 0.76 ± 0.12 vs 0.70 ± 0.15; p = 0.023). Significant improvement in health utility was reported in the ESS cohort (F(2) = 37.69; p < 0.001), whereas values remained stable, without significant improvement, in both the medical therapy cohort (F(2) = 0.03; p = 0.967) and treatment crossover cohort (F(2) = 2.36; p = 0.115). Conclusion: Patients electing continued medical management report better baseline health utility compared to patients electing ESS. Patients electing ESS show significant improvement in health utility, whereas those electing continued medical management demonstrate stable health utility over 12 months.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1002/alr.21588

Cites

43 of 43 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Endoscopic surgical treatment is beneficial in patients with chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyps who have severe symptoms and do not respond to appropriate medical treatment.

    “In CRS with NP , endoscopic surgical treatment has been shown to be beneficial in patients with severe symptoms who do not respond to appropriate medical treatment [20,127,128,212-218] and may be more cost-effective [219,220].”

    From Position Paper on Nasal Obstruction: Evaluation and Treatment (2018) · cites this paper as [212]

    The Results and Discussion (page not available in our copy) report significantly improved health utility after endoscopic sinus surgery in patients with medically refractory CRS; the surgical group also had worse baseline health utility. The reported surgical benefit is for CRS overall, however, not specifically for patients with nasal polyps and severe symptoms. (LLM, conf=0.87)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Luk, L. J., Steele, T. O., Mace, J. C., Soler, Z. M., Rudmik, L., & Smith, T. L.
Affiliations
  • Oregon Health & Science University (US)
  • Medical University of South Carolina (US)
  • University of Calgary (CA)
Corresponding author
Smith, Timothy L.
Venue
International Forum of Allergy & Rhinology
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2015-07-03
Volume
5
Issue
11
Pages
1018-1027
ISSN
  • 2042-6976 (ISSN-L)
  • 2042-6984
OpenAlex
W1481301014
Cited by
48
References
43
Citations by year
2025: 3 · 2024: 2 · 2023: 5 · 2022: 2 · 2021: 5 · 2020: 6 · 2019: 2 · 2018: 4 · 2017: 3 · 2016: 11 · 2015: 5
FWCI
6.88
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • International Forum of Allergy & Rhinology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
  • eScholarship (California Digital Library) (submittedVersion)
Funders
National Institutes of Health (DC005805)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Otorhinolaryngology › Sinusitis and nasal conditions
  • Social Sciences › Economics, Econometrics and Finance › Economics and Econometrics › Health Systems, Economic Evaluations, Quality of Life
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Surgery › Nasal Surgery and Airway Studies
Keywords
chronic rhinosinusitis, health-related quality of life, health utility, SF-6D, medical management, endoscopic sinus surgery, treatment crossover, cost-utility analysis, sinus surgery
MeSH terms
Adult, Aged, Chronic Disease, Costs and Cost Analysis, Female, Follow-Up Studies, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Outcome and Process Assessment, Health Care, Prospective Studies, Quality of Life, Surveys and Questionnaires, Rhinitis, Sinusitis

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review