This validation study assesses the Fr-ENS6Q for diagnosing empty nose syndrome in French speakers, suggesting it is a reliable tool.
Objective: To validate a French version of the Empty Nose Syndrome 6-Item Questionnaire (Fr-ENS6Q). Methods: Thirty-three patients with a diagnosis of empty nose syndrome (ENS) and 50 healthy individuals completed the Fr-ENS6Q and the French versions of the Sinonasal Outcome Tool-22 (Fr-SNOT22) and Nasal Obstruction Symptom Evaluation (Fr-NOSE). The internal consistency (Cronbach-α), test–retest reliability (intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC)), and external validity (correlations between Fr-ENS6Q, Fr-SNOT-22, and Fr-NOSE) were evaluated. The threshold of Fr-ENS6Q for suspecting ENS diagnosis was calculated using the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve. Depression and anxiety were investigated with the General Anxiety Disorder-7 (GAD-7) and the Patient Health Questionnaire-9 (PHQ-9). Results: The Cronbach-α of Fr-ENS6Q was 0.81, indicating an adequate internal consistency. Patients reported higher ENS6Q scores than controls, indicating high internal validity. The Fr-ENS6Q was significantly correlated with the Fr-NOSE (rs = 0.56; p = 0.001) and Fr-SNOT22 (rs = 0.67; p = 0.001), which supports a high external validity. The test–retest reliability was high for ENS6Q scores (ICC = 0.895; 95%CI: 0.763–0.971). An ENS diagnosis can be suspected with an Fr-ENS6Q cutoff ≥ 12 for French-speaking ENS patients. Depression was detected in 97% of patients, with 84.9% requiring further assessment. Patients reported missing symptoms in the ENS6Q, such as sleep disturbance related to nasal airflow disorder, face/eye/dental pain, and fresh nasal sensations during airflow. Conclusions: The Fr-ENS6Q is a valid and reliable patient-reported outcome questionnaire for assessing the severity of ENS symptoms in the French-speaking population. Further improvements to the ENS6Q could consider the inclusion of symptoms that are not present in the current ENS6Q.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Maniaci et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: