Rhinosinusitis: Establishing definitions for clinical research and patient care
By E. Meltzer, D. Hamilos, James A. Hadley, D. Lanza, B. Marple, R. Nicklas, C. Bachert, James Baraniuk, F. Baroody, Michael S. Benninger and 18 more. Otolaryngology Head & Neck Surgery, 2004
1,138 citations recorded by the source corpus.
Background There is a need for more research on all forms of rhinosinusitis. Progress in this area has been hampered by a lack of consensus definitions and the limited number of published clinical trials. Objectives To develop consensus definitions for rhinosinusitis and outline strategies useful in clinical trials. Methods Five national societies, The American Academy of Allergy, Asthma and Immunology; The American Academy of Otolaryngic Allergy; The American Academy of Otolaryngology Head and Neck Surgery; The American College of Allergy, Asthma and Immunology; and the American Rhinologic Society formed an expert panel from multiple disciplines. Over two days, the panel developed definitions for rhinosinusitis and outlined strategies for design of clinical trials. Results Committee members agreed to adopt the term “rhinosinusitis” and reached consensus on definitions and strategies for clinical research on acute presumed bacterial rhinosinusitis, chronic rhinosinusitis without polyposis, chronic rhinosinusitis with polyposis, and classic allergic fungal rhinosinusitis. Symptom and objective criteria, measures for monitoring research progress, and use of symptom scoring tools, quality-of-life instruments, radiologic studies, and rhinoscopic assessment were outlined for each condition. Conclusion The recommendations from this conference should improve accuracy of clinical diagnosis and serve as a starting point for design of rhinosinusitis clinical trials.
Subfields: Immunology and Allergy, Otorhinolaryngology, Surgery
View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/83d434c8ef2fc38eeeecf3dedd5a8799bd75fcb9
How researchers see this paper
The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.
- R. Rosenfeld
- A. Chow
- M. Benninger
- J. Brożek
- D. Wallace
- S. Chandrasekhar
- I. Brook
- T. Zele
Citations in the corpus
- Clinical practice guideline: Adult sinusitis (2007, methodology): “Definitions Chronic rhinosinusitis (CRS) and recurrent acute rhinosinusitis are temporal- and frequency-based patterns of illness (Table 10) that are distinct from isolated episodes of ABRS.(9,45,138) In both diagnoses, the clinical presentation, disease impact, subsequent diagnostic evaluation, and”
- The diagnosis and management of rhinitis: an updated practice parameter. (2008, background): “The effectiveness of intranasal corticosteroids has been shown in studies that have involved a large number of patients with nonallergic rhinitis, especially those with NARES.(146,388-390) Intranasal corticosteroids have also been shown to be effective in the treatment of vasomotor rhinitis.”
- Clinical Practice Guideline (Update): Adult Sinusitis (2015, positive): “When a patient meets the criteria for ARS in Table 4, the clinician should distinguish between viral rhinosinusitis (VRS) and presumed ABRS.(5,13,47,48) This distinction is based on illness pattern and duration (Table 4), because purulent nasal drainage as a sole criterion cannot distinguish between”
- Rhinitis and sinusitis. (2010, neutral): “AFRS is defined as CRS accompanied by (1) the presence of allergic mucin (thick inspissated mucus that ranges in color from light tan to brown to dark green and that contains degranulated eosinophils), (2) fungal hyphae in the mucin, and (3) evidence of IgE-mediated fungal allergy.(4) Allergic mucin”
- Differentiation of chronic sinus diseases by measurement of inflammatory mediators (2006, background): “Recent guidelines have attempted to classify the disease subgroups and unify the current pathophysiologic concepts (3, 4).”
- IDSA clinical practice guideline for acute bacterial rhinosinusitis in children and adults. (2012, background): “toms, characterized by typical viral URI symptoms that appear to improve followed by the sudden onset of worsening symptoms after 5–6 days (‘‘double-sickening’’) [7, 42].”