Juthaporn Phetpong

Objectives: The Chronic Rhinosinusitis Patient‐Reported Outcome (CRS‐PRO) questionnaire was recently developed for use in chronic rhinosinusitis (CRS) patients. This instrument was developed using current diagnostic criteria. This study aimed to translate and validate CRS‐PRO for Thai CRS patients. Methods: The three‐phase translation process and validation were conducted at Rajavithi Hospital, a tertiary hospital in Bangkok, Thailand. Adults (> 18 years) with primary CRS, diagnosed using EPOS2020 criteria, were recruited alongside non‐CRS controls. Discriminant validity was assessed by comparing scores between CRS patients and non‐CRS controls. Concurrent validity was evaluated by correlating CRS‐PRO with the Thai version of the Sinonasal Outcome Test‐22 (SNOT‐22). Reliability was assessed using internal consistency (Cronbach's alpha) and test–retest reliability using intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC). Results: A total of 85 CRS patients and 40 non‐CRS controls were enrolled. The Thai CRS‐PRO was completed in (101.80 ± 26.36) seconds. CRS patients had significantly higher scores than controls (16 [10–24] vs. 2 [0–5], p < 0.001) (median [IQR]). CRS‐PRO demonstrated strong concurrent validity with SNOT‐22 ( ρ = 0.82, p < 0.001), high internal consistency (Cronbach's alpha = 0.89), and high test–retest reliability (ICC = 0.81, 95% confidence interval 0.72–0.88). Conclusions: The Thai‐translated CRS‐PRO has been developed and validated. It demonstrated significant discriminant validity between patients and non‐patients, a very strong correlation with the Thai version of SNOT‐22, and good reliability. Its brevity and time efficiency support its applicability in both clinical practice and research, enhancing its potential for widespread adoption.

Introduction: EuroQol‐5‐dimensions‐5‐levels (EQ‐5D‐5L), visual analog scale (VAS), time trade‐off (TTO), and standard gamble (SG) are used for the assessment of Health Utility Scores (HUS) of chronic rhinosinusitis (CRS). This study aimed to determine the overall HUS of CRS, the factors which influence the HUS, and the preferable method.Methods: A cross‐sectional study was conducted. Patients with primary CRS were recruited. Clinical and socioeconomic data together with HUS were assessed. Four HUS scores determined from the four different methods were compared.Results: A total of 335 patients were enrolled. The overall HUS, as measured by EQ‐5D‐5L, VAS, TTO, and SG, was 0.88 ± 0.14, 0.79 ± 0.17, 0.89 ± 0.15, and 0.86 ± 0.16, respectively. The multivariable linear regression revealed that each increasing 22‐item sinonasal outcome test (SNOT‐22) score predicted a reduction of 0.002 to 0.003 in HUS (all methods, p < 0.01). Patients who scheduled for endoscopic sinus surgery had 0.06 to 0.11 HUS lower than other groups in EQ‐5D‐5L and VAS (all p < 0.05). Higher endoscopy score, age, presence of comorbid airway diseases, and lower education correlated with lower HUS (p < 0.05). Given the HUS results and regression models, the EQ‐5D‐5L is likely the preferable choice.Conclusion: The overall HUS of CRS was approximately 0.79–0.89. High SNOT‐22 score and those who failed medications, presence of comorbid AR/asthma, increased age, high endoscopy score, and low education negatively impacted HUS. Our data suggest that EQ‐5D‐5L is a preferable method for measuring HUS in patients with CRS.