Skip to main content

Main menu

  • Home
  • Current Issue
  • Content
    • Current Issue
    • Early Access
    • Multimedia
    • Podcast
    • Collections
    • Past Issues
    • Articles by Subject
    • Articles by Type
    • Supplements
    • Plain Language Summaries
    • Calls for Papers
  • Info for
    • Authors
    • Reviewers
    • Job Seekers
    • Media
  • About
    • Annals of Family Medicine
    • Editorial Staff & Boards
    • Sponsoring Organizations
    • Copyrights & Permissions
    • Announcements
  • Engage
    • Engage
    • e-Letters (Comments)
    • Subscribe
    • Podcast
    • E-mail Alerts
    • Journal Club
    • RSS
    • Annals Forum (Archive)
  • Contact
    • Contact Us
  • Careers

User menu

  • My alerts

Search

  • Advanced search
Annals of Family Medicine
  • My alerts
Annals of Family Medicine

Advanced Search

  • Home
  • Current Issue
  • Content
    • Current Issue
    • Early Access
    • Multimedia
    • Podcast
    • Collections
    • Past Issues
    • Articles by Subject
    • Articles by Type
    • Supplements
    • Plain Language Summaries
    • Calls for Papers
  • Info for
    • Authors
    • Reviewers
    • Job Seekers
    • Media
  • About
    • Annals of Family Medicine
    • Editorial Staff & Boards
    • Sponsoring Organizations
    • Copyrights & Permissions
    • Announcements
  • Engage
    • Engage
    • e-Letters (Comments)
    • Subscribe
    • Podcast
    • E-mail Alerts
    • Journal Club
    • RSS
    • Annals Forum (Archive)
  • Contact
    • Contact Us
  • Careers
  • Follow annalsfm on Twitter
  • Visit annalsfm on Facebook
Research ArticleOriginal ResearchA

Predicting Prognosis and Effect of Antibiotic Treatment in Rhinosinusitis

An De Sutter, Marieke Lemiengre, Georges Van Maele, Mieke van Driel, Marc De Meyere, Thierry Christiaens and Jan De Maeseneer
The Annals of Family Medicine November 2006, 4 (6) 486-493; DOI: https://doi.org/10.1370/afm.600
An De Sutter
MD, PhD
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Marieke Lemiengre
MD
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Georges Van Maele
PhD
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Mieke van Driel
MD, MS
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Marc De Meyere
MD, PhD
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Thierry Christiaens
MD, PhD
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Jan De Maeseneer
MD, PhD
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • Article
  • Figures & Data
  • eLetters
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF
Loading

Article Figures & Data

Figures

  • Tables
  • Additional Files
  • Figure 1.
    • Download figure
    • Open in new tab
    • Download powerpoint
    Figure 1.

    Flow chart of patients studied.

  • Figure 2.
    • Download figure
    • Open in new tab
    • Download powerpoint
    Figure 2.

    Recovery of patients according to their general feeling of illness at baseline adjusted for covariates.

    FP = family physician.

    Hazard ratio = 0.68 (95% confidence interval, 0.53–0.88); P = .003.

  • Figure 3.
    • Download figure
    • Open in new tab
    • Download powerpoint
    Figure 3.

    Illness course in patients according to treatment and clinical sum score.

    FP = family physician.

    Note: For the sum score, 1 point was given for each of the following: purulent rhinorrhea, postnasal drip, temperature ≤37.5°C, complaints present for ≤7 days, biphasic illness history, pain on bending, unilateral facial pain, and pain in upper teeth. Possible range of scores: 0 to 8 points.

    * Cox regression analysis for interaction between clinical sum score and treatment group (see also Table 3⇑). Model: clinical sum score (<4 /≤4) + treatment group (amoxicillin/placebo) + clinical sum score × treatment group. P value for interaction = .36.

  • Figure 4.
    • Download figure
    • Open in new tab
    • Download powerpoint
    Figure 4.

    Illness course in patients according to treatment and general feeling of illness.

    FP = family physician.

    * Cox regression analysis for interaction between general feeling and treatment group (see also Table 3⇑). Model: general feeling of illness (present vs absent) + treatment group (amoxicillin vs placebo) + general feeling of illness × treatment group. P value for interaction = .91.

Tables

  • Figures
  • Additional Files
    • View popup
    Table 1.

    Comparison of the Patients Meeting Inclusion Criteria Who Were and Were Not Analyzed in the Study

    Patients Analyzed (n = 300)Patients Not Analyzed (n = 89)P
    CharacteristicNo. (%)n*No. (%)Value†
    * A total of 89 patients were not analyzed, but most of the n values in this column are less than 89 because of missing data.
    †χ2 test.
    ‡ Radiographic data were available for only 218 analyzed patients.
    Placebo treatment151 (50.3)8947 (52.8).68
    Age older than mean (37 years)129 (43.0)6331 (49.2).27
    Female sex170 (56.7)7038 (54.3).41
    Purulent rhinorrhea170 (56.7)8246 (56.1).51
    Postnasal drip132 (44.0)8246 (56.1).55
    Temperature ≥37.5°C46 (15.3)8215 (18.3).31
    Complaints ≥7 days138 (46.0)8241 (50.0).30
    Biphasic illness173 (57.7)8246 (56.1).45
    Pain when bending193 (64.3)8255 (67.1).37
    Unilateral facial pain175 (58.3)8244 (53.7).26
    Pain in upper teeth54 (18.0)8214 (17.1).50
    Fatigue186 (62.0)8241 (50.0).03
    Reduced productivity155 (51.7)8236 (43.9).13
    General feeling of illness134 (44.7)8216 (19.5)<.001
    Abnormal radiograph103 (47.2)‡5123 (45.1).45
    Clinical sum score ≥4156 (52.0)8239 (47.6).28
    Antibiotics in previous month2 (0.6)810 (0)1.00
    • View popup
    Table 2.

    Prognostic Variables and Patient Recovery: Results of Cox Proportional Hazard Regression Analyses (N = 300)

    Bivariate AnalysisMultivariate Analysis
    Prognostic VariableHR95% CIP ValueHR95% CIP Value
    * HR = hazard ratio (ratio of the instantaneous recovery rate with and without the prognostic variable; HR <1 means slower recovery when that variable is present at first examination); CI = confidence interval.
    † Results of the stepwise (backward and forward) Cox multiple regression analysis. The variables included in the analysis were sex, unilateral facial pain, reduced productivity, and a general feeling of illness.
    ‡ n = 218.
    Placebo treatment0.970.76–1.24.80––
    Age older than mean (37 years)0.860.66–1.11.23––
    Female sex1.200.93–1.54.16Not selected†
    Purulent rhinorrhea1.090.84–1.40.52––
    Postnasal drip0.900.70–1.16.42––
    Temperature ≥37.5°C0.860.60–1.23.40––
    Complaints ≥7 days0.940.73–1.21.65––
    Biphasic illness0.920.71–1.18.49––
    Pain on bending0.970.75–1.27.85––
    Unilateral facial pain0.760.59–0.98.03Not selected†
    Pain in upper teeth0.820.59–1.14.24––
    Fatigue0.830.64–1.07.15––
    Reduced productivity0.750.59–0.97.030.770.60–0.99.04†
    General feeling of illness0.670.52–0.87.0020.680.53–0.88.003†
    Abnormal radiograph‡1.020.76–1.37.90––
    Clinical sum score ≥40.760.60–0.98.04Not selected†
    • View popup
    Table 3.

    Results of Cox Regression Analysis for Interactions Between Prognostic Variables and Treatment Group*

    Interaction Term†Hazard Ratio95% CIP Value
    CI = confidence interval.
    * The original trial13 had 2 treatment groups: antibiotics and placebo. A significant interaction would mean that the influence of the prognostic variable on the course of illness depends on whether the patient is treated with antibiotics or placebo.
    † Variables included in the multivariate model: prognostic variable + treatment group + prognostic variable × treatment group.
    ‡ Graphically illustrated in Figures 3 and 4.
    § n = 218.
    Age (>37 years) × treatment1.040.62–1.73.79
    Sex × treatment1.060.64–1.76.69
    Purulent rhinorrhea × treatment1.110.67–1.84.68
    Postnasal drip × treatment1.010.61–1.67.98
    Temperature ≥37.5°C × treatment1.120.55–2.29.75
    Complaints ≥7 days × treatment1.100.66–1.83.71
    Biphasic illness × treatment1.000.60–1.67.97
    Pain on bending × treatment1.100.65–1.85.73
    Unilateral facial pain × treatment1.050.63–1.74.85
    Pain in upper teeth × treatment1.310.68–2.52.43
    Fatigue × treatment0.910.54–1.51.71
    Reduced productivity × treatment1.220.74–2.01.44
    General feeling of illness × treatment‡0.970.58–1.61.91
    Abnormal radiograph§ × treatment1.250.69–2.25.47
    Clinical sum score × treatment‡1.270.77–2.09.36

Additional Files

  • Figures
  • Tables
  • The Article in Brief

    Predicting Prognosis and Effect of Antibiotic Treatment in Rhinosinusitis

    By An De Sutter, MD PhD, and colleagues

    Background Rhinosinusitis (or sinusitis) is an infection or inflammation of membranes inside the nose and face. Although antibiotics are not generally effective in treating this condition, they are effective in treating a bacterial type of sinusitis that affects a minority of patients. The goal of this study is to search for clues to help identify sinusitis patients who might benefit from antibiotics.

    What This Study Found Signs and symptoms of sinusitis and abnormal sinus x-ray findings do not help predict the course of the illness or whether the patient will benefit from antibiotics.

    Implications

    • This study contributes to a better understanding of the natural course of the "cold."
    • There is no evidence that signs or symptoms of rhinosinusitis indicate a need for antibiotic treatment. Sinus x-rays have no added value in treating rhinosinusitis patients.
    • The authors suggest that the best policy for patients who might have rhinosinusitis (and who do not have signs of complications or severe infection, such as high fever and serious pain) is to wait for natural recovery.
  • Annals Journal Club Selection:

    Nov/Dec 2006

    The Annals Journal Club is designed to encourage a learning community of those seeking to improve health care and health through enhanced primary care. Additional information is available on the Journal Club home page.

    The Annals of Family Medicine encourages readers to develop the learning community of those seeking to improve health care and health through enhanced primary care. You can participate by conducting a RADICAL journal club, and sharing the results of your discussions in the Annals online discussion for the featured articles. RADICAL is an acronym for: Read, Ask, Discuss, Inquire, Collaborate, Act, and Learn. The word radical also indicates the need to engage diverse participants in thinking critically about important issues affecting primary care, and then acting on those discussions.1

    Articles for Discussion

    • van Driel M, De Sutter A, Deveugele M, et al. Are sore throat patients who hope for antibiotics actually asking for pain relief? Ann Fam Med. 2006;4:494-499.
    • De Sutter A, Lemiengre MB, Van Maele G, et al. Predicting prognosis and effect of antibiotic treatment in rhinosinusitis. Ann Fam Med. 2006;4:486-493.
    • Hickner J. A new look at an old problem: inappropriate antibiotics for acute respiratory infections. Ann Fam Med. 2006;4:484-485.

    Discussion Tips

    These articles use different methods to address different aspects of the problem of antibiotic overuse for respiratory illness.2 van Driel et al solicit the patient�s perspective on the reason for consulting for acute sore throat. De Sutter et al use clinical data to try to predict illness duration and response to antibiotics in patients with rhinosinusitis. You may wish to discuss only one study, or to consider each separately and then try to draw larger insights across both articles.

    Discussion Questions

    • What is the research question in these studies? Why do the questions matter?
    • Are the study designs appropriate for the research questions? How could the designs be improved?
    • Study methods�to what degree can the findings be accounted for by:
      1. How participants were selected?
      2. How key variables were defined and measured?
      3. Confounding (false attribution of causality because 2 variables discovered to be associated actually are associated with a third factor)?
      4. How information was interpreted?
      5. Chance (as indicated by inferential statistics)?
    • Main findings�how do these studies advance current knowledge?
    • Generalizability�how transportable are the findings to other settings, particularly to my patients, practice and community? For the DeSutter et al study, how does the nesting of this observational study within an RCT affect its external validity?
    • Implications�how can these findings be used to change practice or advance new hypotheses and research? Do you think that searching (in patient care and in research) for subgroups of patients who might benefit from antibiotics is justified? How can patient needs/desires be met without antibiotics?

    References

    1. Stange KC, Miller WL, McLellan LA, et al. Annals journal club: It�s time to get RADICAL. Ann Fam Med. 2006;4:196-197. Available at: http://annfammed.org/cgi/content/full/4/3/196.
    2. Centers for Disease Control. Antibiotic/Antimicrobial Resistance Clinical Guidelines. March 30, 2006. Available at: http://www.cdc.gov/drugresistance/clinical.htm.
PreviousNext
Back to top

In this issue

The Annals of Family Medicine: 4 (6)
The Annals of Family Medicine: 4 (6)
Vol. 4, Issue 6
1 Nov 2006
  • Table of Contents
  • Index by author
  • In Brief
  • Annual Indexes 2006
Print
Download PDF
Article Alerts
Sign In to Email Alerts with your Email Address
Email Article

Thank you for your interest in spreading the word on Annals of Family Medicine.

NOTE: We only request your email address so that the person you are recommending the page to knows that you wanted them to see it, and that it is not junk mail. We do not capture any email address.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
Predicting Prognosis and Effect of Antibiotic Treatment in Rhinosinusitis
(Your Name) has sent you a message from Annals of Family Medicine
(Your Name) thought you would like to see the Annals of Family Medicine web site.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
5 + 3 =
Solve this simple math problem and enter the result. E.g. for 1+3, enter 4.
Citation Tools
Predicting Prognosis and Effect of Antibiotic Treatment in Rhinosinusitis
An De Sutter, Marieke Lemiengre, Georges Van Maele, Mieke van Driel, Marc De Meyere, Thierry Christiaens, Jan De Maeseneer
The Annals of Family Medicine Nov 2006, 4 (6) 486-493; DOI: 10.1370/afm.600

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
Get Permissions
Share
Predicting Prognosis and Effect of Antibiotic Treatment in Rhinosinusitis
An De Sutter, Marieke Lemiengre, Georges Van Maele, Mieke van Driel, Marc De Meyere, Thierry Christiaens, Jan De Maeseneer
The Annals of Family Medicine Nov 2006, 4 (6) 486-493; DOI: 10.1370/afm.600
Twitter logo Facebook logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One

Jump to section

  • Article
    • Abstract
    • INTRODUCTION
    • METHODS
    • RESULTS
    • DISCUSSION
    • Footnotes
    • REFERENCES
  • Figures & Data
  • eLetters
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF

Related Articles

  • PubMed
  • Google Scholar

Cited By...

  • The role of antibiotics in the treatment of acute rhinosinusitis in children: a systematic review
  • Acute sinusitis
  • Point-of-Care C-Reactive Protein Testing and Antibiotic Prescribing for Respiratory Tract Infections: A Randomized Controlled Trial
  • On TRACK: The Search for the Holy Grail
  • In This Issue: Prescribing Drugs: What Do Patients and Pharmaceutical Companies Really Want?
  • Annals Journal Club: Antibiotics for Common Respiratory Infections
  • A New Look at an Old Problem: Inappropriate Antibiotics for Acute Respiratory Infections
  • Google Scholar

More in this TOC Section

  • Teamwork Among Primary Care Staff to Achieve Regular Follow-Up of Chronic Patients
  • Shared Decision Making Among Racially and/or Ethnically Diverse Populations in Primary Care: A Scoping Review of Barriers and Facilitators
  • Convenience or Continuity: When Are Patients Willing to Wait to See Their Own Doctor?
Show more Original Research

Similar Articles

Subjects

  • Domains of illness & health:
    • Acute illness
    • Disease pathophysiology / etiology
  • Methods:
    • Quantitative methods

Content

  • Current Issue
  • Past Issues
  • Early Access
  • Plain-Language Summaries
  • Multimedia
  • Podcast
  • Articles by Type
  • Articles by Subject
  • Supplements
  • Calls for Papers

Info for

  • Authors
  • Reviewers
  • Job Seekers
  • Media

Engage

  • E-mail Alerts
  • e-Letters (Comments)
  • RSS
  • Journal Club
  • Submit a Manuscript
  • Subscribe
  • Family Medicine Careers

About

  • About Us
  • Editorial Board & Staff
  • Sponsoring Organizations
  • Copyrights & Permissions
  • Contact Us
  • eLetter/Comments Policy

© 2025 Annals of Family Medicine