CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 26Nasal Surgery and Airway StudiesSinusitis and nasal conditionsCleft Lip and Palate Research

Validation of the sino-nasal outcome test-23 in septorhinoplasty surgery

Open access
Takhar, A., Stephens, J., Randhawa, P.S., Poirrier, A.L., Andrews, P.·2014·Rhinology journal
DOI 10.4193/rhin14.009
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

Background: There has been a great expansion in patient-based outcome measures to face the ever-increasing demand to demonstrate surgical efficacy. However, surgeons have not adopted until now any systematic outcome instrument. The 22-item Sino-Nasal Outcome Test (SNOT-22) is a validated sinonasal outcome score in sinonasal and septorhinoplasty surgery but does not measure aesthetic outcome. The aim of this paper is to validate a modification to the Sino-Nasal Outcomes Test-22 (SNOT-22) with a new question regarding the shape of the nose (SNOT-23). Methodology: We conducted a prospective cohort study on 69 consecutive patients undergoing septorhinoplasty and a control group of healthy volunteers. Reproducibility, responsiveness to treatment, known group differences and validity of the SNOT-23 were analysed. Scores were compared to visual analogue scales, nasal obstruction symptoms evaluation (NOSE) score and nasal inspiratory peak flow. Results: SNOT-23 has good test-retest reliability and is a valid outcome measure for assessing response to surgery especially with regards to shape of the nose and nasal obstruction when compared to other patient reported measures. Conclusion: SNOT-23 is a valid and reliable tool that can be easily used in routine clinical practice to assess the functional and aesthetic outcomes from septorhinoplasty surgery. The SNOT-23 could be adopted as a universal, easy to use tool in rhinology clinics for the assessment of response to septorhinoplasty and sinus surgery.

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 · 10.4193/rhino14.009

Cites

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?

  • PNIF relationship seems to improve when compared with validated questionnaires such as SNOT-22 and NOSE.

    “although it seems to improve when compared with validated questionnaires such as the Sino-Nasal Outcome Test (SNOT-22) and NOSE [65,68,70-73].”

    From Position Paper on Nasal Obstruction: Evaluation and Treatment (2018) · cites this paper as [71]

    The ‘Comparison to nasal inspiratory peak flow’ section reports that PNIF improved after surgery, but explicitly finds no correlation between improvement in PNIF and total SNOT-23 scores. The high correlation reported for NOSE is with SNOT-23, not PNIF; this paper does not establish an improved PNIF relationship with SNOT-22 or NOSE. The supplied copy gives no page numbers for these passages. (LLM, conf=0.87)

    Checked by a reasoning model — may be wrong.

    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

No references could be resolved yet.

Research works printed but not linked: 25

  1. Yu K, Kim A, Pearlman S. Functional and aes- thetic concerns of patients seeking revision rhinoplasty. Arch Facial Plast Surg 2010; 120: 291-297.
  2. Steiger J. The rhinoplasty consult. Facial Plast Surg 2011; 5: 393-396.
  3. Hopkins C. Patient reported outcome meas- ures in rhinology. Rhinology 2009; 47: 10-17.
  4. Morley AD, Sharp HR. A review of sinonasal outcome scoring systems -which is best? Clinical Otolaryngology 2006; 31: 103-109.
  5. Hopkins C, Gillett S, Slack R, Lund V, Browne J. Psychometric validity of the 22-item Sinonasal Outcome Test. Clinical Otolaryngol 2009; 34: 447-454.
  6. Erekosima NU, Katial RK. Assessing nasal symptom control. Curr Allergy Asthma Rep 2009; 9: 134-139.
  7. Timperley D, Stow N, Srubiski A, Harvey R, Marcells G. Functional outcomes of struc- tured nasal tip refinement. Arch Facial Plast Surg 2010; 12: 298-304.
  8. Poirrier A, Ahluwalia S, Kwame I, Hannan S, Bentley M, Andrews P. External Nasal Valve Collapse: Surgical Techniques and Outcome Measurement. Rhinology. 2014; 52: 127-132.
  9. Poirrier A, Ahluwalia S, Goodson A, Ellis M, Bentley M, Andrews P. Is the Sino-Nasal Outcome Test-22 a suitable evaluation for septorhinoplasty? Laryngoscope 2013; 123: 76-81.
  10. Rhee JS, Poetker DM, Smith TL, Bustillo A, Burzynski M, Davis RE. Nasal Valve Surgery Improves Disease-Specific Quality of Life. Laryngoscope 2005; 115: 437-440.
  11. Lindsay RW. Disease-specific quality of life outcomes in functional rhinoplasty. Laryngoscope 2012; 122: 1480-1488.
  12. Saleh AM, Younes A, Friedman O. Cosmetics and function: Quality-of-Life changes after rhinoplasty surgery. Laryngoscope 2012; 122: 254-259.
  13. Stewart M, Witsell D, Smith T, Weaver E, Yueh B, Hannley M. Development and vali- dation of the Nasal Obstruction Symptom Evaluation (NOSE) scale. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2004; 130: 157-163.
  14. Dolan R. Minimally invasive nasal valve repair: An evaluation using the NOSE scale. Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2010; 136: 292-295.
  15. Mondina M, Marro M, Maurice S, Stoll D, de Gabory L. Assessment of nasal septoplasty using NOSE and RhinoQoL questionnaires. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol 2012; 269: 2189- 2195.
  16. Phillips P, Stow N, Timperley D, Sacks R, Srubiski A, Harvey R, et al. Functional and cosmetic outcomes of external approach septoplasty. Am J Rhinol Allergy 2011; 25: 351-357.
  17. Clavien P, Barkun J, de Oliveira M, Vauthey J, Dindo D, Schulick R, et al. The Clavien-Dindo Classification of Surgical Complications: Five-Year Experience. Ann Surg 2009; 250: 187-196.
  18. Bauchau V, Durham S. Prevalence and rate of diagnosis of allergic rhinitis in Europe. Eur Respir J 2004; 24: 758-764.
  19. Eccles R. A guide to practical aspects of measurement of human nasal airflow by rhinomanometry. Rhinology 2011; 49: 2-10.
  20. Yoo S, Most S. Nasal airway preservation using the autospreader technique: analysis of outcomes using a disease-specific qual- ity-of-life instrument. Arch Facial Plast Surg 2011; 13: 231-233.
  21. Most S. Analysis of Outcomes After Functional Rhinoplasty Using a Disease- Specific Quality-of-Life Instrument. Arch Facial Plast Surg 2006; 8: 306-309.
  22. Piccirillo JF, Merritt Jr MG, Richards ML. Psychometric and clinimetric validity of the 20-Item Sino-Nasal Outcome Test (SNOT- 20). Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2002; 126: 41-47.
  23. Buckland JR, Thomas S, Harries PG. Can the Sino-nasal Outcome Test (SNOT-22) be used as a reliable outcome measure for success- ful septal surgery? Clin Otolaryngol Allied Sci 2003; 28: 43-47.
  24. Hytönen M, Lilja M, Mäkitie A, Sintonen H, Roine R. Does septoplasty enhance the quality of life in patients? Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol 2012; 269: 2497-2503.
  25. Tasman A. The psychological aspects of rhi- noplasty. Curr Opin Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2010; 18(4): 290-294.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Takhar, A., Stephens, J., Randhawa, P. S., Poirrier, A. L., & Andrews, P.
Affiliations
Royal National Throat Nose and Ear Hospital (GB)
ORCID
Venue
Rhinology journal
Publisher
Stichting Nase
Published
2014-12-01
Volume
52
Issue
4
Pages
301-304
ISSN
0300-0729 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.4193/rhin14.009
OpenAlex
W4239815122
Cited by
26
References
0
Citations by year
2024: 2 · 2023: 2 · 2022: 2 · 2021: 3 · 2020: 2 · 2019: 5 · 2018: 2 · 2017: 2 · 2016: 1 · 2015: 3 · 2014: 2
FWCI
2.64
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Rhinology Journal (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • ORBi (University of Liège) (submittedVersion)
Funders
Washington University in St. Louis
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Surgery › Nasal Surgery and Airway Studies
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Otorhinolaryngology › Sinusitis and nasal conditions
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Genetics › Cleft Lip and Palate Research
Keywords
Sino-Nasal Outcome Test, septorhinoplasty, patient-reported outcome measures, nasal aesthetic outcomes, nasal obstruction, test-retest reliability, treatment response, nasal shape, NOSE score
MeSH terms
Humans, Nasal Septum, Prospective Studies, Quality of Life, Surveys and Questionnaires, Rhinoplasty, Nasal Obstruction, Outcome Assessment, Health Care, Nasal Surgical Procedures

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