We have located links that may give you full text access.
Journal Article
Research Support, N.I.H., Extramural
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Cognitive function in chronic rhinosinusitis: a controlled clinical study.
International Forum of Allergy & Rhinology 2015 November
BACKGROUND: Cognitive dysfunction in patients with chronic rhinosinusitis (CRS) has previously received little attention. Cognitive data generally includes only subjective measures and lack appropriate controls when cognition is considered. The purpose of this study was to characterize dimensions of cognitive function that are affected in patients with CRS compared to a control sample using subjective and objective measures of cognitive function.
METHODS: Patients fulfilling diagnostic criteria for CRS and non-CRS controls were recruited from the same clinical reference population. Patient-reported cognitive dysfunction was assessed using the Cognitive Failures Questionnaire (CFQ) and fatigue via the Fatigue Severity Scale (FSS). Objective cognitive function was assessed using a battery of tests from the Automated Neuropsychological Assessment Metrics (ANAM) computerized platform.
RESULTS: A total of 100 subjects were enrolled, including 50 patients with active CRS and 50 control subjects. Patients with CRS scored significantly worse in subjective cognition as measured by total CFQ scores (38.3 ± 16.5 vs 30.9 ± 12.5; p = 0.009) and the FSS (4.2 ± 1.6 vs 3.0 ± 1.5; p = 0.001). Patients with CRS were also found to have worse simple reaction time scores compared to controls without CRS (162.4 ± 56.2 vs 193.0 ± 44.6; p = 0.003). These differences persisted regardless of polyp status. Performance differences for FSS and SRT measures remained significant after controlling for age, gender, race/ethnicity, education, allergic rhinitis, asthma, obstructive sleep apnea, depression, and antihistamine usage.
CONCLUSION: Patients with CRS report significantly more cognitive dysfunction and fatigue on validated instruments and had worse reaction times on computerized testing. Further study is necessary to determine whether available treatments impact these measures.
METHODS: Patients fulfilling diagnostic criteria for CRS and non-CRS controls were recruited from the same clinical reference population. Patient-reported cognitive dysfunction was assessed using the Cognitive Failures Questionnaire (CFQ) and fatigue via the Fatigue Severity Scale (FSS). Objective cognitive function was assessed using a battery of tests from the Automated Neuropsychological Assessment Metrics (ANAM) computerized platform.
RESULTS: A total of 100 subjects were enrolled, including 50 patients with active CRS and 50 control subjects. Patients with CRS scored significantly worse in subjective cognition as measured by total CFQ scores (38.3 ± 16.5 vs 30.9 ± 12.5; p = 0.009) and the FSS (4.2 ± 1.6 vs 3.0 ± 1.5; p = 0.001). Patients with CRS were also found to have worse simple reaction time scores compared to controls without CRS (162.4 ± 56.2 vs 193.0 ± 44.6; p = 0.003). These differences persisted regardless of polyp status. Performance differences for FSS and SRT measures remained significant after controlling for age, gender, race/ethnicity, education, allergic rhinitis, asthma, obstructive sleep apnea, depression, and antihistamine usage.
CONCLUSION: Patients with CRS report significantly more cognitive dysfunction and fatigue on validated instruments and had worse reaction times on computerized testing. Further study is necessary to determine whether available treatments impact these measures.
Full text links
Related Resources
Trending Papers
Challenges in Septic Shock: From New Hemodynamics to Blood Purification Therapies.Journal of Personalized Medicine 2024 Februrary 4
Molecular Targets of Novel Therapeutics for Diabetic Kidney Disease: A New Era of Nephroprotection.International Journal of Molecular Sciences 2024 April 4
The 'Ten Commandments' for the 2023 European Society of Cardiology guidelines for the management of endocarditis.European Heart Journal 2024 April 18
A Guide to the Use of Vasopressors and Inotropes for Patients in Shock.Journal of Intensive Care Medicine 2024 April 14
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
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