The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Impact of Mucosal Eosinophilia and Nasal Polyposis on Quality‐of‐Life Outcomes after Sinus Surgery
Open accessAbstract
OBJECTIVE: Assess whether the presence of mucosal eosinophilia correlates with surgical outcomes in patients with chronic rhinosinusitis. STUDY DESIGN: Prospective cohort. SETTING: Tertiary medical center. SUBJECTS AND METHODS: Adult patients with chronic rhinosinusitis were prospectively enrolled, and demographic data and medical comorbidities were recorded. Preoperative quality of life (QOL) was measured by the Chronic Sinusitis Survey (CSS), Rhinosinusitis Disability Index (RSDI), and Short Form‐36 General Health Survey (SF‐36). Sinus mucosal specimens were collected at the time of surgery and the degree of eosinophilia quantified. Postoperative QOL was measured, and differences in QOL improvement were compared between those with and without eosinophilia. RESULTS: A total of 102 patients had both histopathological and QOL outcome data available for review. Follow‐up averaged 16.5 months. Patients with eosinophilia showed significantly less improvement in the RSDI total (17.9 vs 25.0; P = 0.044), RSDI functional (5.7 vs 8.8; general health subscale; P = 0.018), CSS medication (3.6 vs 17.3; P = 0.013), SF‐36 general health (0.6 vs 9.6; P = 0.008), SF‐36 physical role (16.1 vs 34.7; P = 0.036), and SF‐36 vitality (11.9 vs 21.2; P = 0.034) scales than those without eosinophilia. The greatest improvement in QOL was seen in patients without eosinophilia or polyps, with the least improvement seen in those with eosinophilia but without polyps. CONCLUSION: The presence of mucosal eosinophilia at the time of surgery consistently predicted less improvement in both disease‐specific and general QOL compared with patients without eosinophilia. The impact of eosinophilia on outcomes was greatest for patients without nasal polyposis, a group that demonstrated the least improvement in QOL measures.
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
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.
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
Norman, G. R., Sloan, J. A., & Wyrwich, K. W. (2003) · Medical Care · doi:10.1097/01.mlr.0000062554.74615.4c · Cited by 4,700
Cited by
Novel scoring system and algorithm for classifying chronic rhinosinusitis: the JESREC Study
Tokunaga, T., Sakashita, M., Haruna, T., Asaka, D., Takeno, S., Ikeda, H., Nakayama, T., Seki, N., Ito, S., Murata, J., et al. (2015) · Allergy · doi:10.1111/all.12644 · Cited by 710
Predictive Significance of Tissue Eosinophilia for Nasal Polyp Recurrence in the Chinese Population
Lou, H., Meng, Y., Piao, Y., Wang, C., Zhang, L., & Bachert, C. (2015) · American Journal of Rhinology & Allergy · doi:10.2500/ajra.2015.29.4231 · Cited by 273
Metadata
- Authors
- Soler, Z. M., Sauer, D., Mace, J., & Smith, T. L.
- Venue
- Otolaryngology–Head and Neck Surgery
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2010-01
- Volume
- 142
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 64-71
- ISSN
- 0161-6439 (ISSN-L)
- 0194-5998
- 1097-6817
- OpenAlex
- W2079573726
- Cited by
- 238
- References
- 1
- FWCI
- 7.54
- 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: Impact of Mucosal Eosinophilia and Nasal Polyposis on Quality‐of‐Life Outcomes after Sinus Surgery. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1016/j.otohns.2009.10.005
- The paper
- Soler, Z. M., Sauer, D., Mace, J., & Smith, T. L. (2010). Impact of Mucosal Eosinophilia and Nasal Polyposis on Quality‐of‐Life Outcomes after Sinus Surgery. Otolaryngology–Head and Neck Surgery. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.otohns.2009.10.005
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.