The Value of Multiple Medication Trials Prior to Balloon Sinuplasty in the Management of Chronic Sinonasal Disease

Abstract Introduction In patients with chronic rhinosinusitis, conservative interventions with extended medical trials are often attempted prior to procedural treatment. Balloon sinuplasty (BSP) is an established procedure for symptomatic relief from chronic rhinosinusitis. However, data suggesting the suboptimal efficacy of prolonged medication management trials, prior to BSP, is lacking. Objectives The purpose of this study was to evaluate the efficacy of prolonged medication management trials, prior to BSP, for patients with chronic rhinosinusitis. Methods A retrospective review was performed for all adults with chronic rhinosinusitis who received extended medical management prior to their BSP at two outpatient clinics, from November 1, 2013, to June 31, 2018. The patients' Sino-Nasal Outcome Test (SNOT) scores were compared between baseline, post-medication trials, and post-BSP. Results The SNOT scores of a total of 64 patients were collected. Overall, patients showed a significant worsening of symptoms during the medication management trials from baseline (p = 0.002126) but significant improvement of symptoms after undergoing BSP (p < 0.0001). Conclusions The patient symptom burden worsened and prolonged during medication management trials. The BSP procedure alone showed significant improvement in the quality of life for chronic rhinosinusitis patients, when considering their SNOT scores. The worsening of patients' symptoms during medication management may invalidate the necessity of prolonged medication management trials.

The Value of Multiple Medication Trials Prior to Balloon Sinuplasty in the Management of Chronic Sinonasal Disease.

Introduction In patients with chronic rhinosinusitis, conservative interventions with extended medical trials are often attempted prior to procedural treatment. Balloon sinuplasty (BSP) is an established procedure for symptomatic relief from chronic rhinosinusitis. However, data suggesting the suboptimal efficacy of prolonged medication management trials, prior to BSP, is lacking. Objectives The purpose of this study was to evaluate the efficacy of prolonged medication management trials, prior to BSP, for patients with chronic rhinosinusitis. Methods A retrospective review was performed for all adults with chronic rhinosinusitis who received extended medical management prior to their BSP at two outpatient clinics, from November 1, 2013, to June 31, 2018. The patients' Sino-Nasal Outcome Test (SNOT) scores were compared between baseline, post-medication trials, and post-BSP. Results The SNOT scores of a total of 64 patients were collected. Overall, patients showed a significant worsening of symptoms during the medication management trials from baseline ( p = 0.002126) but significant improvement of symptoms after undergoing BSP ( p < 0.0001). Conclusion The patient symptom burden worsened and prolonged during medication management trials. The BSP procedure alone showed significant improvement in the quality of life for chronic rhinosinusitis patients, when considering their SNOT scores. The worsening of patients' symptoms during medication management may invalidate the necessity of prolonged medication management trials.

Global research coaching in orthopedic surgery: seeding for an international network.

Despite the importance of delivering evidence-based health care, orthopedic surgeons have directed fewer efforts towards the generation of such evidence. Even when present, published evidence lacks methodological rigor and is known to be inaccurate. One of the main reasons for the lack of generation of quality evidence, and the low involvement in research among orthopedic surgeons, is the lack of structured research coaching environments where they can learn concepts and hone their research skills. There is a palpable need for a pragmatic and outcome-oriented approach that can equip orthopedic surgeons with effective ways of communicating their research in writing. We describe a pragmatic research coaching program, designed and developed by the Research on Research group, which aims to build a global network of orthopedic researchers trained in streamlined and standardized research methods. We also provide a brief overview of the course principles and tools, and the platforms used in this program.

Treinamento em pesquisa global em cirurgia ortopédica: semente para uma rede internacional / Global research coaching in orthopedic surgery: seeding for an international network

Apesar da importância de praticar o atendimento de saúde baseado em evidências, os cirurgiões ortopedistas têm direcionado poucos esforços para gerar essas evidências. Mesmo quando presente, a evidência publicada é falha quanto ao rigor metodológico e sabe-se que é imprecisa. Um dos principais motivos para a falta de geração de evidências de qualidade é o baixo envolvimento dos cirurgiões ortopedistas na pesquisa e a falta de ambientes de treinamento estruturados em pesquisa, onde eles possam aprender conceitos, assim como aprimorar suas habilidades em pesquisa. Existe a necessidade de uma abordagem objetiva que possa equipar os cirurgiões ortopedistas com métodos eficientes para transitarem da pesquisa para a escrita. Descrevemos um programa pragmático de treinamento em pesquisa, planejado e desenvolvido pelo grupo de Pesquisa sobre Pesquisa, que visa montar uma rede global de pesquisadores ortopedistas treinados em métodos de pesquisa funcionais e padronizados. Também fornecemos um rápido panorama sobre os princípios do curso e suas ferramentas, assim como plataformas usadas nesse programa.

Despite the importance of delivering evidence-based health care, orthopedic surgeons have directed fewer efforts towards the generation of such evidence. Even when present, published evidence lacks methodological rigor and is known to be inaccurate. One of the main reasons for the lack of generation of quality evidence, and the low involvement in research among orthopedic surgeons, is the lack of structured research coaching environments where they can learn concepts and hone their research skills. There is a palpable need for a pragmatic and outcome-oriented approach that can equip orthopedic surgeons with effective ways of communicating their research in writing. We describe a pragmatic research coaching program, designed and developed by the Research on Research group, which aims to build a global network of orthopedic researchers trained in streamlined and standardized research methods. We also provide a brief overview of the course principles and tools, and the platforms used in this program.

Scientific writing: a randomized controlled trial comparing standard and on-line instruction.

BACKGROUND: Writing plays a central role in the communication of scientific ideas and is therefore a key aspect in researcher education, ultimately determining the success and long-term sustainability of their careers. Despite the growing popularity of e-learning, we are not aware of any existing study comparing on-line vs. traditional classroom-based methods for teaching scientific writing. METHODS: Forty eight participants from a medical, nursing and physiotherapy background from US and Brazil were randomly assigned to two groups (n = 24 per group): An on-line writing workshop group (on-line group), in which participants used virtual communication, google docs and standard writing templates, and a standard writing guidance training (standard group) where participants received standard instruction without the aid of virtual communication and writing templates. Two outcomes, manuscript quality was assessed using the scores obtained in Six subgroup analysis scale as the primary outcome measure, and satisfaction scores with Likert scale were evaluated. To control for observer variability, inter-observer reliability was assessed using Fleiss's kappa. A post-hoc analysis comparing rates of communication between mentors and participants was performed. Nonparametric tests were used to assess intervention efficacy. RESULTS: Excellent inter-observer reliability among three reviewers was found, with an Intraclass Correlation Coefficient (ICC) agreement = 0.931882 and ICC consistency = 0.932485. On-line group had better overall manuscript quality (p = 0.0017, SSQSavg score 75.3 +/- 14.21, ranging from 37 to 94) compared to the standard group (47.27 +/- 14.64, ranging from 20 to 72). Participant satisfaction was higher in the on-line group (4.3 +/- 0.73) compared to the standard group (3.09 +/- 1.11) (p = 0.001). The standard group also had fewer communication events compared to the on-line group (0.91 +/- 0.81 vs. 2.05 +/- 1.23; p = 0.0219). CONCLUSION: Our protocol for on-line scientific writing instruction is better than standard face-to-face instruction in terms of writing quality and student satisfaction. Future studies should evaluate the protocol efficacy in larger longitudinal cohorts involving participants from different languages.