Modification of the lund‐kennedy endoscopic scoring system improves its reliability and correlation with patient‐reported outcome measures
2014; Wiley; Volume: 124; Issue: 10 Linguagem: Inglês
10.1002/lary.24654
ISSN1531-4995
AutoresAlkis J. Psaltis, Gang Li, Reza Vaezeafshar, Kyu‐Sup Cho, Peter H. Hwang,
Tópico(s)Colorectal Cancer Screening and Detection
ResumoObjectives/Hypothesis To compare three existing endoscopic scoring systems and a newly proposed modified scoring system for the assessment of patients with chronic rhinosinusitis (CRS). Study Design Blinded, prospective cohort study. Methods CRS patients completed two patient‐reported outcome measures (PROMs)—the visual analogue scale (VAS) symptom score and the Sino‐Nasal Outcome Test‐22 (SNOT‐22)—and then underwent a standardized, recorded sinonasal endoscopy. Videos were scored by three blinded rhinologists using three scoring systems: the Lund‐Kennedy (LK) endoscopic score; the Discharge, Inflammation, Polyp (DIP) score; and the Perioperative Sinonasal Endoscopic score. The videos were further scored using a modified Lund‐Kennedy (MLK) endoscopic scoring system, which retains the LK subscores of polyps, edema, and discharge but eliminates the scoring of scarring and crusting. The systems were compared for test‐retest and inter‐rater reliability as well as for their correlation with PROMs. Results One hundred two CRS patients were enrolled. The MLK system showed the highest inter‐rater and test‐retest reliability of all scoring systems. All systems except for the DIP correlated with total VAS scores. The MLK was the only system that correlated with the symptom subscore of the SNOT‐22 in both unoperated and postoperative patients. Conclusions Modification of the LK system by excluding the subscores of scarring and crusting improves its reliability and its correlation with PROMs. In addition, the MLK system retains the familiarity of the widely used LK system and is applicable to any patient irrespective of surgical status. The MLK system may be a more suitable and reliable endoscopic scoring system for clinical practice and outcomes research. Level of Evidence 4 Laryngoscope 124:2216–2223, 2014
Referência(s)