International forum of allergy & rhinology · 2023
Determinants of physician assessment of chronic rhinosinusitis disease control using EPOS 2020 criteria and the importance of incorporating patient perspectives of disease control.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Sedaghat Ahmad R, Caradonna David S, Chandra Rakesh K, Franzese Christine, Gray Stacey T, Halderman Ashleigh A, Hopkins Claire, Kuan Edward C, Lee Jivianne T, McCoul Edward D, O'Brien Erin K, Pletcher Steven D, Pynnonen Melissa A, Wang Eric W, Wise Sarah K, Woodworth Bradford A, Yao William C, Phillips Katie M
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: We identify chronic rhinosinusitis (CRS) manifestations associated with how rhinologists assess CRS control, with a focus on patient perspectives (patient-reported CRS control).
METHODS: Fifteen rhinologists were provided with real-world data from 200 CRS patients. Participating rhinologists first classified patients' CRS control as "controlled," "partly controlled," and "uncontrolled" using seven CRS manifestations reflecting European Position Paper on Rhinosinusitis and Nasal Polyps (EPOS) CRS control criteria (nasal obstruction, drainage, impaired smell, facial pain/pressure, sleep disturbance, use of systemic antibiotics/corticosteroids in past 6 months, and nasal endoscopy findings) and patient-reported CRS control. They then classified patients' CRS control without knowledge of patient-reported CRS control. Interrater reliability and agreement of rhinologist-assessed CRS control with patient-reported CRS control and EPOS guidelines were determined.
RESULTS: CRS control classification with and without knowledge of patient-reported CRS control was highly consistent across rhinologists (κw = 0.758). Rhinologist-assessed CRS control agreed with patient-reported CRS control significantly better when rhinologists had knowledge of patient-reported CRS control (κw = 0.736 vs. κw = 0.554, p < 0.001). Patient-reported CRS control, nasal obstruction, drainage, and endoscopy findings were most strongly associated with rhinologists' assessment of CRS control. Rhinologists' CRS control assessments weakly agreed with EPOS CRS control guidelines with (κw = 0.529) and without (κw = 0.538) patient-reported CRS control. Rhinologists classified CRS as more controlled than EPOS guidelines in almost 50% of cases.
CONCLUSIONS: This study directly demonstrates the importance of patient-reported CRS control as a dominant influence on rhinologists' CRS control assessment. Knowledge of patient-reported CRS control may better align rhinologists' CRS control assessments and treatment decisions with patients' perspectives.
METHODS: Fifteen rhinologists were provided with real-world data from 200 CRS patients. Participating rhinologists first classified patients' CRS control as "controlled," "partly controlled," and "uncontrolled" using seven CRS manifestations reflecting European Position Paper on Rhinosinusitis and Nasal Polyps (EPOS) CRS control criteria (nasal obstruction, drainage, impaired smell, facial pain/pressure, sleep disturbance, use of systemic antibiotics/corticosteroids in past 6 months, and nasal endoscopy findings) and patient-reported CRS control. They then classified patients' CRS control without knowledge of patient-reported CRS control. Interrater reliability and agreement of rhinologist-assessed CRS control with patient-reported CRS control and EPOS guidelines were determined.
RESULTS: CRS control classification with and without knowledge of patient-reported CRS control was highly consistent across rhinologists (κw = 0.758). Rhinologist-assessed CRS control agreed with patient-reported CRS control significantly better when rhinologists had knowledge of patient-reported CRS control (κw = 0.736 vs. κw = 0.554, p < 0.001). Patient-reported CRS control, nasal obstruction, drainage, and endoscopy findings were most strongly associated with rhinologists' assessment of CRS control. Rhinologists' CRS control assessments weakly agreed with EPOS CRS control guidelines with (κw = 0.529) and without (κw = 0.538) patient-reported CRS control. Rhinologists classified CRS as more controlled than EPOS guidelines in almost 50% of cases.
CONCLUSIONS: This study directly demonstrates the importance of patient-reported CRS control as a dominant influence on rhinologists' CRS control assessment. Knowledge of patient-reported CRS control may better align rhinologists' CRS control assessments and treatment decisions with patients' perspectives.