Journal Article
Multicenter Study
Observational Study
Research Support, N.I.H., Extramural
Add like
Add dislike
Add to saved papers

Investigating the minimal clinically important difference for SNOT-22 symptom domains in surgically managed chronic rhinosinusitis.

BACKGROUND: Prior work has described 5 domains within the 22-item Sino-Nasal Outcomes Test (SNOT-22) that allow for stratification of symptoms into similar clusters and that can be used to direct therapy. Although the outcomes of various interventions on these symptom domains have been reported, minimal clinically important difference (MCID) values have not been investigated, which has limited clinical interpretation of these results.

METHODS: This study was designed as a secondary analysis of a prospective, multi-institutional, observational cohort. A total of 276 patients with medically refractory CRS who underwent surgical management were enrolled. Distribution-based methods (half-standard deviation, standard error of measurement, Cohen's d, and the minimum detectable change) were used to compute MCID values for both SNOT-22 total and domain scores. The Medical Outcomes Study Short Form 6D (SF-6D) health utility score was used to operationalize anchor-based associations using receiver-operating characteristic (ROC) curves.

RESULTS: The mean MCID of several distribution-based methods for total SNOT-22 scores was 9.0, in agreement with previously published metrics. Average MCID values for the rhinologic, extranasal rhinologic, ear/facial, psychological, and sleep domain scores were 3.8, 2.4, 3.2, 3.9, and 2.9, respectively. Anchor-based approaches with the SF-6D did not have strong predictive accuracy across total SNOT-22 scores or domains (ROC areas under-the-curve ≤ 0.71), indicating weak associations between improvement in SNOT-22 scores and health utility as measured by the SF-6D.

CONCLUSION: This estimation of MCID values for the SNOT-22 symptom domains allows for improved clinical interpretation of results from past, present, and future rhinologic outcomes research.

Full text links

We have located links that may give you full text access.
Can't access the paper?
Try logging in through your university/institutional subscription. For a smoother one-click institutional access experience, please use our mobile app.

Related Resources

For the best experience, use the Read mobile app

Mobile app image

Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university

For the best experience, use the Read mobile app

All material on this website is protected by copyright, Copyright © 1994-2024 by WebMD LLC.
This website also contains material copyrighted by 3rd parties.

By using this service, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy.

Your Privacy Choices Toggle icon

You can now claim free CME credits for this literature searchClaim now

Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university

For the best experience, use the Read mobile app