Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-94fs2 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-10T21:05:55.630Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Chronic rhinosinusitis assessment using the Adelaide Disease Severity Score

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 April 2013

Y Naidoo ,
N Tan ,
D Singhal  and
P J Wormald
Y Naidoo*
Affiliation:
Department of Surgery – Otolaryngology Head and Neck Surgery, University of Adelaide, South Australia, Australia
N Tan
Affiliation:
Department of Surgery – Otolaryngology Head and Neck Surgery, University of Adelaide, South Australia, Australia
D Singhal
Affiliation:
Department of Surgery – Otolaryngology Head and Neck Surgery, University of Adelaide, South Australia, Australia
P J Wormald
Affiliation:
Department of Surgery – Otolaryngology Head and Neck Surgery, University of Adelaide, South Australia, Australia
*
Address for correspondence: Dr Yuresh Naidoo, Department of Surgery – Otolaryngology Head and Neck Surgery, The Queen Elizabeth Hospital, 28 Woodville Road, Woodville, South Australia, Australia 5011 Fax: +61 08 82227419 E-mail: yuresh@med.usyd.edu.au
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Aim:

This study aimed to validate the use of the Adelaide Disease Severity Score for the assessment of chronic rhinosinusitis.

Study design:

A prospective cohort study supplying level 2b evidence.

Methods:

Forty-eight patients, scheduled for endoscopic sinus surgery for failed management of chronic rhinosinusitis, completed the Sino-Nasal Outcome Test 22 and the Adelaide Disease Severity Score tool (the latter assessing symptoms (i.e. nasal obstruction, rhinorrhoea, post-nasal drip, headache or facial pain, and olfaction) and quality of life). Lund–Mackay computed tomography scores and Lund–Kennedy endoscopic scores were also recorded. The Adelaide Disease Severity Score results were then compared with those of the other three tools to assess correlation.

Results:

Mean scores (95 per cent confidence intervals) were 22.31 (21.47–24.15) for the Adelaide Disease Severity Score and 30.6 (27.15–34.05) for the Sino-Nasal Outcome Test 22; there was a statistically significant correlation (Spearman coefficient = 0.45; p = 0.0015). A statistically significant correlation was also noted with the Lund–Mackay score (p = 0.04) and with the Lund–Kennedy score (p = 0.03).

Conclusion:

The Adelaide Disease Severity Score is a simple, valid tool for clinical assessment of chronic rhinosinusitis, which correlates well with the Sino-Nasal Outcome Test 22, Lund–Mackay and Lund–Kennedy tools.

Keywords

Quality of LifeOutcomes AssessmentSinusitisEndoscopic Surgical Procedures
Type
Main Articles
Information
The Journal of Laryngology & Otology , Volume 127 , Supplement S2 , July 2013 , pp. S24 - S28
Copyright
Copyright © JLO (1984) Limited 2013 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1Department of Health. Guidance on the Routine Collection of Patient Reported Outcome Measures (PROMs). London: Stationery Office, 2009;292518Google Scholar
2Piccirillo, JF, Merritt, MG Jr, Richards, ML. Psychometric and clinimetric validity of the 20-Item Sino-Nasal Outcome Test (SNOT-20). Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2002;126:41–7CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
3Fokkens, W, Lund, V, Mullol, J, European Position Paper on Rhinosinusitis and Nasal Polyps Group. European position paper on rhinosinusitis and nasal polyps 2007. Rhinol Suppl 2007:1–136Google ScholarPubMed
4Lanza, DC, Kennedy, DW. Adult rhinosinusitis defined. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 1997;117:S1–7CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
5Piccirillo, JF, Edwards, D, Haiduk, A, Yonan, C, Thawley, SE. Psychometric and clinimetric validity of the 31-item rhinosinusitis outcome measure (RSOM-31). Am J Rhinol 1995;9:297–306CrossRefGoogle Scholar
6Ryan, WR, Ramachandra, T, Hwang, PH. Correlations between symptoms, nasal endoscopy, and in-office computed tomography in post-surgical chronic rhinosinusitis patients. Laryngoscope 2011;121:674–8CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
7Patel, PM, Maskell, S, Heywood, R, Eze, N, Hern, J. Prospective, comparative, cohort study comparing the rhinogram, Sino-Nasal Outcome Test-20 and Heath-Related Quality of Life questionnaire. J Laryngol Otol 2010;124:623–30CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
8Buckland, JR, Thomas, S, Harries, PG. Can the Sino-nasal Outcome Test (SNOT-22) be used as a reliable outcome measure for successful septal surgery? Clin Otolaryngol Allied Sci 2003;28:43–7CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
9Hens, G, Vanaudenaerde, BM, Bullens, DM, Piessens, M, Decramer, M, Dupont, LJ et al. Sinonasal pathology in nonallergic asthma and COPD: 'united airway disease' beyond the scope of allergy. Allergy 2008;63:261–7CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
10Srouji, IA, Andrews, P, Edwards, C, Lund, VJ. General and rhinosinusitis-related quality of life in patients with Wegener's granulomatosis. Laryngoscope 2006;116:1621–2CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
11Srouji, I, Lund, V, Andrews, P, Edwards, C. Rhinologic symptoms and quality-of-life in patients with Churg-Strauss syndrome vasculitis. Am J Rhinol 2008;22:406–9CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
12Timperley, D, Stow, N, Srubiski, A, Harvey, R, Marcells, G. Functional outcomes of structured nasal tip refinement. Arch Facial Plast Surg 2010;12:298–304CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
13Lange, B, Thilsing, T, Al-kalemji, A, Baelum, J, Martinussen, T, Kjeldsen, A. The Sino-Nasal Outcome Test 22 validated for Danish patients. Dan Med Bull 2011;58:A4235Google ScholarPubMed
14Schalek, P, Otruba, L, Hahn, A. Quality of life in patients with chronic rhinosinusitis: a validation of the Czech version of SNOT-22 questionnaire. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol 2010;267:473–5CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
15Majima, Y, Kurono, Y, Hirakawa, K, Suzaki, H, Haruna, S, Kawauchi, H et al. Reliability and validity assessments of a Japanese version of QOL 20-Item Sino-Nasal Outcome Test for chronic rhinosinusitis. Auris Nasus Larynx 2010;37:443–8CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
16Fahmy, FF, McCombe, A, McKiernan, DC. Sino nasal assessment questionnaire, a patient focused, rhinosinusitis specific outcome measure. Rhinology 2002;40:195–7Google ScholarPubMed
17Mortuaire, G, Vandeville, S, Chevalier, D. Psychometric evaluation of the SinoNasal Outcome Test-16 for quality of life in chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyps. Eur Ann Otorhinolaryngol Head Neck Dis 2010;127:91–6CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
18Bhattacharyya, N. Symptom outcomes after endoscopic sinus surgery for chronic rhinosinusitis. Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2004;130:329–33CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
19Revicki, DA, Leidy, NK, Brennan-Diemer, F, Thompson, C, Togias, A. Development and preliminary validation of the multiattribute Rhinitis Symptom Utility Index. Qual Life Res 1998;7:693–702CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
20Browne, JP, Hopkins, C, Slack, R, Cano, SJ. The Sino-Nasal Outcome Test (SNOT): can we make it more clinically meaningful? Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2007;136:736–41CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
21Ling, FT, Kountakis, SE. Important clinical symptoms in patients undergoing functional endoscopic sinus surgery for chronic rhinosinusitis. Laryngoscope 2007;117:1090–3CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
22Wabnitz, DA, Nair, S, Wormald, PJ. Correlation between preoperative symptom scores, quality-of-life questionnaires, and staging with computed tomography in patients with chronic rhinosinusitis. Am J Rhinol 2005;19:91–6CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed