Table 1.

Role of diagnostic nasal endoscopy and ct paranasal sinuses in diagnosing chronic rhinosinusitis

Study	Year	Statistical measure	No.	Conclusions
Benninger et al. [13]	1997	Proportion (11 %)*	100	Endoscopy useful only when diagnosis unclear
Rosbe et al. [14]	1998	Proportion (91 %)**	92	High specificity of endoscopy
Stankiewicz et al. [11]	2002	Sensitivity (46 %), specificity (86 %), PPV (74 %), NPV (64 %)	78	Low correlation with subjective symptoms, high specificity of endoscopy
Bhattacharyya et al. [12]	2010	PPV (66.0), NPV (70.3), OR (4.6)	202	Addition of endoscopy to subjective symptoms greatly improved the diagnostic accuracy
Ferguson et al. [15]	2012	Sensitivity (24 %), specificity (100 %)	125	High specificity and low sensitivity of endoscopy make it useful for confirming CRS diagnosis but not for ruling it out
Present study	2014	Sensitivity (88.04 %), sensitivity (28.57 %), PPV (94.19 %), NPV (15.38 %), PLR (1.23), NLR (0.42), p value (0.10565)	100	High sensitivity and PPV makes endoscopy a diagnostic modality to accurately diagnose the disease but does not rule it out

PPV positive predictive value, NPV negative predictive value, OR odds ratio

* Proportion in Benninger et al. [13] study means proportion of participants in whom nasal endoscopy played an important role in the evaluation when added to history and physical examination with anterior rhinoscopy

** Proportion in Rosbe et al. [14] study indicates proportion of participants with positive endoscopy findings who also had computed tomography positive for CRS