Cited by 15Sinusitis and nasal conditionsNasal Surgery and Airway StudiesCystic Fibrosis Research Advances

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

Early versus Delayed Endoscopic Sinus Surgery in Patients with Chronic Rhinosinusitis: Impact on Health Care Utilization

Benninger, Michael S., Holy, Chantal E., Sindwani, Raj, Hopkins, Claire·2014·Otolaryngology–Head and Neck Surgery

Abstract

Objectives: Using a patient cohort with chronic rhinosinusitis (CRS) refractory to medical management, evaluate the impact of early versus delayed endoscopic sinus surgery (ESS) in terms of postoperative health care utilization. Methods: The MarketScan CCAE database was queried. Patients with ESS in 2010 and complete medical history from 2004 to 2012 were identified. Diagnoses of CRS or polyposis prior to 2005 as well as ESS prior to 2010 were exclusion criteria. Patients were characterized by time interval of first CRS diagnosis to ESS and grouped as follows: (1) <1 year (N = 888); (2) 1‐2 years (N = 267); (3) 2‐3 years (N = 300); (4) 3‐4 years (N = 414); and (5) 4‐5 years (N = 649). Outpatient visits/procedures and prescriptions associated with CRS were analyzed for all groups at the following time points: year immediately preoperative, year 1 postoperative, and year 2 postoperative. Results: Patients in all groups showed significant decline in health care utilization following surgery. Groups 1 and 2 had significantly fewer health care needs pre‐ and postoperatively compared to Group 5. Specifically, Group 1 had an average of 3.45 visits (95% confidence interval [CI]: 3.31‐3.58) and 2.92 filled prescriptions (95% CI: 2.71‐3.14) preoperatively versus Group 5 (visits: 4.57 (95% CI: 4.37‐4.78); prescriptions: 4.69 (95% CI: 4.33‐5.05)). At year 2 postoperative, Group 1 had 0.92 visits (95% CI: 0.74‐1.10) and 0.82 prescriptions (95% CI: 0.67‐0.96) versus Group 5, with 1.78 visi…

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1177/0194599814541627a272

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

  • Delay in surgery can negatively influence postoperative results and healthcare costs in chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyps.

    “The delay in surgery can negatively influence postoperative results and healthcare costs [221], although more studies are necessary to confirm this observation [218].”

    From Position Paper on Nasal Obstruction: Evaluation and Treatment (2018) · cites this paper as [221]

Citations

Cites

Still being checked.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Metadata

Authors
Benninger, M. S., Holy, C. E., Sindwani, R., & Hopkins, C.
Venue
Otolaryngology–Head and Neck Surgery
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2014-09
Volume
151
Issue
S1
ISSN
  • 0161-6439 (ISSN-L)
  • 0194-5998
  • 1097-6817
OpenAlex
W4237835250
Cited by
15
References
0
Citations by year
2025: 1 · 2023: 1 · 2021: 2 · 2020: 2 · 2019: 1 · 2018: 3 · 2017: 1 · 2016: 4
FWCI
1.49
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
Otolaryngology (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Otorhinolaryngology › Sinusitis and nasal conditions
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Surgery › Nasal Surgery and Airway Studies
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Pulmonary and Respiratory Medicine › Cystic Fibrosis Research Advances
Keywords
chronic rhinosinusitis, endoscopic sinus surgery, timing of surgery, early versus delayed surgery, health care utilization, outpatient visits, prescription drug use, postoperative outcomes, refractory sinusitis, polyposis, MarketScan claims data, cost-effectiveness of surgery, patient-reported outcomes, quality of life, patient satisfaction, patient engagement

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