Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 481

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 40 of the 40 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Fungal rhinosinusitis: A categorization and definitional schema addressing current controversies

Open access
Chakrabarti, Arunaloke, Denning, David W., Ferguson, Berrylin J., Ponikau, Jens, Buzina, Walter, Kita, Hirohito, Marple, Bradley, Panda, Naresh, Vlaminck, Stephan, Kauffmann‐Lacroix, Catherine, Das, Ashim, Singh, Paramjeet, Taj‐Aldeen, Saad J., Kantarcioglu, A. Serda, Handa, Kumud K., Gupta, Ashok, Thungabathra, M., Shivaprakash, Mandya R., Bal, Amanjit, Fothergill, Annette, Radotra, Bishan D.·2009·The Laryngoscope
DOI 10.1002/lary.20520
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Background: Fungal (rhino‐) sinusitis encompasses a wide spectrum of immune and pathological responses, including invasive, chronic, granulomatous, and allergic disease. However, consensus on terminology, pathogenesis, and optimal management is lacking. The International Society for Human and Animal Mycology convened a working group to attempt consensus on terminology and disease classification. Discussion: Key conclusions reached were: rhinosinusitis is preferred to sinusitis; acute invasive fungal rhinosinusitis is preferred to fulminant, or necrotizing and should refer to disease of <4 weeks duration in immunocompromised patients; both chronic invasive rhinosinusitis and granulomatous rhinosinusitis were useful terms encompassing locally invasive disease over at least 3 months duration, with differing pathology and clinical settings; fungal ball of the sinus is preferred to either mycetoma or aspergilloma of the sinuses; localized fungal colonization of nasal or paranasal mucosa should be introduced to refer to localized infection visualized endoscopically; eosinophilic mucin is preferred to allergic mucin; and allergic fungal rhinosinusitis (AFRS), eosinophilic fungal rhinosinusitis, and eosinophilic mucin rhinosinusitis (EMRS) are imprecise and require better definition. In particular, to implicate fungi (as in AFRS and EMRS), hyphae must be visualized in eosinophilic mucin, but this is often not processed or examined carefully enough by histologists, reducing the universality of the disease classification. A schema for subclassifying these entities, including aspirin‐exacerbated rhinosinusitis, is proposed allowing an overlap in histopathological features, and with granulomatous, chronic invasive, and other forms of rhinosinusitis. Recommendations for future research avenues were also identified. Laryngosope, 2009

Overview

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/lary.20520

Cites

40 of 40 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

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

Self-check

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

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

Citations

Cites

Show all 40 references

Cited by

See all 481

Metadata

Authors
Chakrabarti, A., Denning, D. W., Ferguson, B. J., Ponikau, J., Buzina, W., Kita, H., Marple, B., Panda, N., Vlaminck, S., Kauffmann‐Lacroix, C., Das, A., Singh, P., Taj‐Aldeen, S. J., Kantarcioglu, A. S., Handa, K. K., Gupta, A., Thungabathra, M., Shivaprakash, M. R., Bal, A., Fothergill, A., & Radotra, B. D.
Venue
The Laryngoscope
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2009-06-18
Volume
119
Issue
9
Pages
1809-1818
ISSN
  • 0023-852X (ISSN-L)
  • 1531-4995
DOI
10.1002/lary.20520
OpenAlex
W1978569335
Cited by
481
References
40
FWCI
14.50
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
green

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

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Fungal rhinosinusitis: A categorization and definitional schema addressing current controversies. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1002/lary.20520
The paper
Chakrabarti, A., Denning, D. W., Ferguson, B. J., Ponikau, J., Buzina, W., Kita, H., Marple, B., Panda, N., Vlaminck, S., Kauffmann‐Lacroix, C., Das, A., Singh, P., Taj‐Aldeen, S. J., Kantarcioglu, A. S., Handa, K. K., Gupta, A., Thungabathra, M., Shivaprakash, M. R., Bal, A., . . . Radotra, B. D. (2009). Fungal rhinosinusitis: A categorization and definitional schema addressing current controversies. The Laryngoscope. https://doi.org/10.1002/lary.20520

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.