Subjective symptoms as predictors for eosinophilic chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyps in the Chinese population

Zhang, Chen; Wang, Huan; Zhang, Qianqian; Chen, Jiani; Yu, Haoran; Li, Wangpeng; Fan, Guo-Kang; Hu, Li; Wang, Dehui; Sun, Xicai

doi:10.1007/s00405-023-07905-1

Cited by 3 publications

(2 citation statements)

References 31 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…This discrepancy could be explained by the innovative endoscopic scoring system used in our study. 25 Unlike the nasal polyps subscore in the most commonly utilized Lund-Kennedy Endoscopic Scoring System, we used a more precise five-level polyp scaling system, which may explain the improved correlation between objective measurements and PROMs. This finding implies that the Chinese CRS-PRO version may better reflect the severity of CRS.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Our previous research defined an endoscopic scoring system, which included edema, mucus, and polyp scores. 25 All participants received the CRS-PRO, SNOT-22, and five-level EQ-5D questionnaires one day before ESS. Volunteers free of sinonasal diseases were solely recruited to analyze the discriminatory validity of these instruments.…”

Section: Translation and Cross-cultural Adaptationmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Chinese adaptation and validation of the chronic rhinosinusitis‐patient‐reported outcome: Assessment of health‐related quality‐of‐life

Chen,

Hu,

Zhang

et al. 2023

Int Forum Allergy Rhinol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundThe chronic rhinosinusitis patient‐reported outcome (CRS‐PRO) is a recently published disease‐specific questionnaire designed for CRS patients, with fewer entries and ease of completion. This study aimed to translate the CRS‐PRO questionnaire into Chinese and assess its reliability, validity, and responsiveness to provide Chinese patients with a more concise and efficient subjective assessment instrument.MethodsThe Chinese version of the CRS‐PRO was created through forward‐backward translations and cultural adaptation. Here, 168 CRS patients (118 patients CRS with nasal polyps [CRSwNP] and 50 patients with CRS without nasal polyps [CRSsNP]) and 43 healthy individuals were enrolled. All participants completed the CRS‐PRO, 22‐item Sinonasal Outcome Test (SNOT‐22), and EuroQol five dimensions questionnaire (EQ‐5D) questionnaires preoperatively as well as 3 and 6 months after surgery.ResultsThe Chinese version of the CRS‐PRO demonstrated good internal consistency, with a Cronbach's α of 0.813. It also exhibited a higher criterion validity (r = 0.65, p < 0.05) than the SNOT‐22. A moderate association was found between the CRS‐PRO and objective indicators such as the Lund–Mackay and endoscopic scores. Furthermore, the CRS‐PRO, like the SNOT‐22, could clearly distinguish CRS patients from healthy subjects (p < 0.01), as well as between the CRSwNP and CRSsNP subtypes (p < 0.01). Additionally, changes in the CRS‐PRO exhibited a larger effect size compared to changes in the SNOT‐22 (Cohen's d = 1.05 and 0.93 vs. 0.71 and 0.90 for 3 and 6 months, respectively, all p < 0.01).ConclusionsThe Chinese version of the CRS‐PRO is a concise, reliable, and responsive instrument that can be utilized as a novel subjective evaluation tool for future clinical practice.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Translation and Cross-cultural Adaptationmentioning

confidence: 99%