4.2 Article

Prevalence of sinonasal outcome test (SNOT-22) symptoms in patients undergoing surgery for chronic rhinosinusitis in the England and Wales National prospective audit

期刊

CLINICAL OTOLARYNGOLOGY
卷 37, 期 4, 页码 276-282

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/j.1749-4486.2012.02527.x

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Clin. Otolaryngol. 2012, 37, 276282 Objectives: Review and evaluate the prevalence and severity of individual symptoms in patients with chronic rhinosinusitis (CRS) with or without nasal polyposis. Design and Setting: Retrospective analysis of data from the National Comparative Audit of Surgery for Nasal Polyposis and CRS, carried out across 87 hospitals in England and Wales between 2000 and 2001. Participants: A total of 2573 patients with CRS (1784 had CRS with nasal polyposis, 789 without nasal polyposis) who had undergone sinus surgery. Main outcome measures: Severity of clinical symptoms scores was graded on the Sino-Nasal Outcome Test 22 questionnaire. Prevalence of these symptoms and mean symptom scores were calculated for each group of patients at baseline and 3 months after surgery. Results: In both groups, nasal blockage/congestion had the highest mean symptom score, followed by altered smell/taste and then the need to blow nose. These three symptoms were the most prevalent in the group with nasal polyposis. In the group without nasal polyposis, nasal blockage was also the most prevalent individual symptom (93.5%) followed by altered smell/taste (75.7%). The third most prevalent symptom was waking up tired (69.9%). The average test score preoperatively was 41.5 (group with nasal polyposis) and 44.4 (group without nasal polyposis). This decreased to 18.3 and 14.1, respectively, 3 months after surgery (P < 0.001). Conclusion: The leading three symptoms were nasal blockage/congestion, altered taste/smell and the need to blow the nose in terms of severity and prevalence. The total Sino-Nasal Outcome Test 22 and all individual symptom scores improved significantly after surgery.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.2
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据