Determine whether the patient-identified minimum important difference (MID) in Nasal Obstruction Symptom Evaluation (NOSE) score differs from a statistically calculated estimate of MID in patients with septal deviation undergoing nasal airway surgery.
Study Design
Prospective cohort.
Setting
Tertiary academic referral center.
Subjects
Patients with nasal obstruction due to septal deviation.
Methods
Patients completed the NOSE questionnaire preoperatively and indicated the change from their baseline score that they would consider the minimum improvement required to define the septoplasty with turbinate reduction as successful. A previously published distribution-based approach was used to estimate the MID based on baseline NOSE scores. Scores were reported both as a raw score and as a percentage of patients’ baseline scores. One-sample t test was used to compare the statistically estimated MID to the patient-reported MID.
Results
Seventy-six patients were included. The mean (SD) baseline NOSE score was 12.9 (4.03). The mean (SD) patient-identified MID was 5.3 (2.1), corresponding to a 41.1% change (95% confidence interval, 37.2-41.3) from baseline. The statistically estimated MID was 5.2 points (40.3% reduction from baseline scores). The estimated MID was not significantly different from the patient-identified MID (P = .4).
Conclusion
In patients with septal deviation, an improvement of approximately 40% in their nasal obstructive symptoms as assessed by the NOSE questionnaire is required to define a nasal airway surgery as successful. The patient-identified and the statistically calculated MIDs were similar. Furthermore, this MID can be used to guide research, improving the ability to use the NOSE score as a dichotomous scoring measure (treatment success/failure) and estimating sample size.
DerinSSahanMDeveerMErdoganSTetikerHKoseogluS.The causes of persistent and recurrent nasal obstruction after primary septoplasty. J Craniofac Surg. 2016;27:828-830.
2.
VelascoLCArimaLMTiagoRS.Assessment of symptom improvement following nasal septoplasty with or without turbinectomy. Braz J Otorhinolaryngol. 2011;77:577-83.
3.
ChambersKJHorstkotteKAShanleyKLindsayRW.Evaluation of improvement in nasal obstruction following nasal valve correction in patients with a history of failed septoplasty. JAMA Facial Plast Surg. 2015;17:347-350.
4.
van EgmondMMRoversMMHendriksCTvan HeerbeekN.Effectiveness of septoplasty versus non-surgical management for nasal obstruction due to a deviated nasal septum in adults: study protocol for a randomized controlled trial. Trials. 2015;16:1.
5.
ManoukianPDWyattJRLeopoldDABassEB.Recent trends in utilization of procedures in otolaryngology–head and neck surgery. Laryngoscope. 1997;107:472-477.
6.
IllumP.Septoplasty and compensatory inferior turbinate hypertrophy: long-term results after randomized turbinoplasty. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol. 1997;254(suppl 1):S89-S92.
7.
NunezDABradleyPJ.A randomised clinical trial of turbinectomy for compensatory turbinate hypertrophy in patients with anterior septal deviations. Clin Otolaryngol Allied Sci. 2000;25:495-498.
8.
RoblinDGEcclesR.What, if any, is the value of septal surgery?Clin Otolaryngol Allied Sci. 2002;27:77-80.
9.
SipiläJSuonpääJ. A prospective study using rhinomanometry and patient clinical satisfaction to determine if objective measurements of nasal airway resistance can improve the quality of septoplasty. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol. 1997;254:387-390.
10.
SimolaMMalmbergH.Sensation of nasal airflow compared with nasal airway resistance in patients with rhinitis. Clin Otolaryngol. 1997;22:260-262.
11.
GrymerLFHilbergOEldbrondO. Acoustic rhinometry: evaluation of the nasal cavity with septal deviations, before and after septoplasty. Laryngoscope. 1989;99:1180-1187.
12.
StewartMGSmithTLWeaverEM. Outcomes after nasal septoplasty: results from the Nasal Obstruction Septoplasty Effectiveness (NOSE) study. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2004;130:283-290.
13.
GandomiBBayatAKazemeiT.Outcomes of septoplasty in young adults: the Nasal Obstruction Septoplasty Effectiveness study. Am J Otolaryngol. 2010;31:189-192.
14.
UppalSMistryHNadigSBackGCoatesworthA.Evaluation of patient benefit from nasal septal surgery for nasal obstruction. Auris Nasus Larynx. 2005;32:129-137.
15.
BohlinLDahlqvist A.Nasal airway resistance and complications following functional septoplasty: a ten-year follow-up study. Rhinology. 1994;32:195-197.
16.
SiegelNSGliklichRETaghizadehFChangY.Outcomes of septoplasty. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2000;122:228-232.
17.
RheeJSPoetkerDMSmithTLBustilloABurzynskiMDavisRE.Nasal valve surgery improves disease-specific quality of life. Laryngoscope. 2005;115:437-440.
18.
AndréRFVuykHDAhmedAGraamansKNolst TrenitéGJ.Correlation between subjective and objective evaluation of the nasal airway: a systematic review of the highest level of evidence. Clin Otolaryngol. 2009;34:518-525.
19.
CalderNJSwanIRC. Outcomes of septal surgery. J Laryngol Otol. 2007;121:1060-1063.
20.
KonstantinidisITriaridisSTriaridisAKaragiannidisKKontzoglouG.Long term results following nasal septal surgery focus on patient’s satisfaction. Auris Nasus Larynx. 2005;32:369-374.
21.
DinisPBHaiderH.Septoplasty: long-term evaluation of results. Am J Otolaryngol. 2002;23:85-90.
22.
PhillipsPSStowNTimperleyDG. Functional and cosmetic outcomes of external approach septoplasty. Am J Rhinol Allergy. 2011;25:351-357.
23.
StewartMGWitsellDLSmithTLWeaverEMYuehBHannleyMT.Development and validation of the Nasal Obstruction Symptom Evaluation (NOSE) scale. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2004;130:157-163.
24.
LindsayRW.Disease-specific quality of life outcomes in functional rhinoplasty. Laryngoscope. 2012;122:1480-1488.
25.
MostSP.Analysis of outcomes after functional rhinoplasty using a disease-specific quality-of-life instrument. Arch Facial Plast Surg. 2006;8:306-309.
26.
YeungAHassounehBKimDW.Outcome of nasal valve obstruction after functional and aesthetic-functional rhinoplasty. JAMA Facial Plast Surg. 2016;18:128-134.
27.
KahveciOKMimanMCYucelAYucedagFOkurEAltuntasA.The efficiency of Nose Obstruction Symptom Evaluation (NOSE) scale on patients with nasal septal deviation. Auris Nasus Larynx. 2012;39:275-279.
28.
CopayAGSubachBRGlassmanSDPollyDWSchulerTC.Understanding the minimum clinically important difference: a review of concepts and methods. Spine. 2007;7:541-546.
29.
JaeschkeRSingerJGuyattGH.Measurement of health status: ascertaining the minimal clinically important difference. Control Clin Trials. 1989;10:407-415.
30.
ChanKBMan-Son-HingMMolnarFJLaupacisA.How well is the clinical importance of study results reported? An assessment of randomized controlled trials. CMAJ. 2001;165:1197-1202.
31.
GuyattGHOsobaDWuAWWyrwichKWNormanGRGroupCS.Methods to explain the clinical significance of health status measures. Elsevier. 2002;77:371-383.
32.
CrosbyRDKolotkinRLWilliamsGR.Defining clinically meaningful change in health-related quality of life. J Clin Epidemiol. 2003;56:395-407.
33.
WyrwichKWNienaberNATierneyWMWolinskyFD.Linking clinical relevance and statistical significance in evaluating intra-individual changes in health-related quality of life. Med Care. 1999;37:469-478.
34.
WyrwichKWTierneyWMWolinskyFD.Further evidence supporting an SEM-based criterion for identifying meaningful intra-individual changes in health-related quality of life. J Clin Epidemiol. 1999;52:861-873.
35.
LachanasVATsiouvakaSTseaMHajiioannouJKSkoulakisCE.Validation of the Nasal Obstruction Symptom Evaluation (NOSE) scale for Greek patients. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2014;151:819-823.
36.
MarroMMondinaMStollDde GaboryL.French validation of the NOSE and RhinoQOL questionnaires in the management of nasal obstruction. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2011;144:988-993.
37.
MozzanicaFUrbaniEAtacM. Reliability and validity of the Italian Nose Obstruction Symptom Evaluation (I-NOSE) scale. Eur Arch Otolaryngol Suppl. 2013;270:3087-3094.
38.
WyrwichKWWolinskyFD.Identifying meaningful intra-individual change standards for health-related quality of life measures. J Eval Clin Pract. 2000;6:39-49.
39.
de VetHCTerweeCBOsteloRWBeckermanHKnolDLBouterLM.Minimal changes in health status questionnaires: distinction between minimally detectable change and minimally important change. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2006;4:1-5.
40.
MylesPSMylesDBGalagherWChewCMacDonaldNDennisA.Minimal clinically important difference for three quality of recovery scales. Anesthesiology. 2016;125:39-45.
41.
WellsGBeatonDSheaB. Minimal clinically important differences: review of methods. J Rheumatol. 2001;28:406-412.
42.
NormanGRSloanJAWyrwichKW.Interpretation of changes in health-related quality of life: the remarkable universality of half a standard deviation. Med Care. 2003;41:582-592.
43.
ManestarDBrautTKujundzicM. The effects of disclosure of sequential rhinomanometry scores on post-septoplasty subjective scores of nasal obstruction: a randomised controlled trial. Clin Otolaryngol. 2012;37:176-180.
44.
BezerraTFStewartMGFornazieriMA. Quality of life assessment septoplasty in patients with nasal obstruction. Braz J Otorhinolaryngol. 2012;78:57-62.
45.
KloseKKreimeierSTangermannUAumannIDammK.Patient- and person-reports on healthcare: preferences, outcomes, experiences, and satisfaction—an essay. HER. 2016;6:1.
46.
RolfsonOBohmEFranklinP. Patient-reported outcome measures in arthroplasty registries: report of the Patient-Reported Outcome Measures Working Group of the International Society of Arthroplasty Registries Part II. Recommendations for selection, administration, and analysis. Acta Orthopaedica. 2016;5:1-5.
47.
WyrwichKW.Minimal important difference thresholds and the standard error of measurement: is there a connection?J Biopharm Stat. 2004;14:97-110.
48.
MondinaMMarroMMauriceSStollDde GaboryL.Assessment of nasal septoplasty using NOSE and RhinoQoL questionnaires. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol. 2012;269:2189-2195.
49.
VickersAJ.The use of percentage change from baseline as an outcome in a controlled trial is statistically inefficient: a simulation study. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2001;1:1-6.
