The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Mucosal eosinophilia and recurrence of nasal polyps - new classification of chronic rhinosinusitis
Open accessAbstract
Background: Eosinophils and nasal polyps are believed to affect the surgical outcome of chronic rhinosinusitis (CRS). CRS is classified based on the presence of nasal polyps in western countries. The majority of patients with CRS with nasal polyps (CRS with NP) are characterized by predominantly eosinophilic inflammation. However, Asian patients with CRS with NP show characteristics indicative of neutrophilic inflammation. Therefore, are eosinophils or nasal polyps more important for the classification of CRS? Methods: A prospective cohort study conducted from April 2007 to March 2008 classified patients with CRS based on the presence of nasal polyps and mucosal eosinophilia. The recurrence rate of nasal polyps was compared between the groups. Recurrence rate was analysed as a time-dependent variable by the Kaplan-Meier method. Results: Eosinophilic inflammation was found in 59.6% of patients with CRS with NP. Patients with mucosal eosinophilia had higher polyp recurrence rate than patients without mucosal eosinophilia, whereas patients with nasal polyps did not have higher polyp recurrence rate than patients without nasal polyps. Conclusions: Presence of mucosal eosinophilia is a more important factor than nasal polyps for classifying CRS in terms of the surgical outcome.
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
Fokkens, W. J., Lund, V. J., Mullol, J., Bachert, C., Alobid, I., Baroody, F., Cohen, N., Cervin, A., Douglas, R., Gevaert, P., et al. (2012) · Rhinology journal · doi:10.4193/rhino12.000 · Cited by 2,387
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
Self-citationPredictive 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
- Nakayama, T., Yoshikawa, M., Asaka, D., Okushi, T., Matsuwaki, Y., Otori, N., Hama, T., & Moriyama, H.
- Venue
- Rhinology journal
- Publisher
- Stichting Nase
- Published
- 2011-10-01
- Volume
- 49
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 392-396
- ISSN
- 0300-0729 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2412685330
- Cited by
- 228
- References
- 1
- FWCI
- 5.92
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
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: Mucosal eosinophilia and recurrence of nasal polyps - new classification of chronic rhinosinusitis. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.4193/rhino10.261
- The paper
- Nakayama, T., Yoshikawa, M., Asaka, D., Okushi, T., Matsuwaki, Y., Otori, N., Hama, T., & Moriyama, H. (2011). Mucosal eosinophilia and recurrence of nasal polyps - new classification of chronic rhinosinusitis. Rhinology journal. https://doi.org/10.4193/rhino10.261
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.