Clinical and Laboratory Features of Various Criteria of Eosinophilic Chronic Rhinosinusitis: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Objectives. The aim of this study was to evaluate the differences in clinical and laboratory features between eosinophilic chronic rhinosinusitis (ECRS) and non-ECRS and to compare diagnostic criteria for ECRS. Methods. We compared clinical features and/or laboratory findings classified as ECRS and non-ECRS according to various diagnostic criteria (histological and clinical). We also analyzed studies to compare endoscopic findings, symptom scores, laboratory findings, and computed tomography (CT) findings between ECRS and non-ECRS. Results. Our search included 55 studies with 6,143 patients. A comparison of clinical features and/or laboratory criteria with histological criteria showed no significant differences in nasal symptom scores and CT scores according to criteria. Serum eosinophil levels showed differences across the criteria, with ECRS consistently characterized by higher serum eosinophil levels than non-ECRS. Among the four criteria, the Japanese Epidemiological Survey of Refractory Eosin-ophilic Chronic Rhinosinusitis (JESREC) criteria and tissue eosinophilia (>= 70) were associated with decreased olfac-tory function. In laboratory findings, the eosinophil percentage (standardized mean difference [SMD], 1.561; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.329-1.794; P<0.001) and eosinophil count (SMD, 1.493; 95% CI, 1.134-1.852; P<0.001) of eosinophils were higher in ECRS than non-ECRS. In clinical findings, nasal symptom scores (SMD, 0.382; 95% CI, 0.156-0.608; P<0.001), endoscopic nasal polyp scores (SMD, 0.581; 95% CI, 0.314-0.848; P<0.001), and olfactory dysfunction (SMD, 0.416; 95% CI, 0.037-0.794; P= 0.031) were higher in ECRS than in non-ECRS. With regard to CT findings, the whole-sinus opacification score (SMD, 0.824; 95% CI, 0.588-1.059; P<0.001) was higher in ECRS than in non-ECRS. In particular, there were significant differences in anterior ethmoid sinus and sphenoid sinus opacification. Conclusion. ECRS and non-ECRS differ in their clinical and laboratory features. When histological confirmation is difficult on an outpatient basis, ECRS could be diagnosed using clinical features and/or laboratory findings.

Automated summary

This study evaluated the differences in clinical and laboratory features between eosinophilic chronic rhinosinusitis (ECRS) and non-ECRS and compared diagnostic criteria for ECRS. The results showed that ECRS and non-ECRS have distinct clinical and laboratory features, with higher levels of eosinophils in ECRS.