Evidence map›Paper›PMID 15329029›Full record

ReviewPharmacoEconomics2004

Acute rhinosinusitis : a pharmacoeconomic review of antibacterial use.

Jean-Blaise Wasserfallen, Françoise Livio, Giorgio Zanetti

Abstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in PharmacoEconomics, 2004. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed
0.3field-weighted citation impact, top 36% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

6 citing papers in PubMed, 15 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Cost-effectiveness of mometasone furoate nasal spray in the treatment of acute rhinosinusitis.Primary care respiratory journal : journal of the General Practice Airways Group · 2012
    Trial
  3. Comprehensive Review ofPharmaceuticals (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024
    Review
  4. Article
  5. Factors affecting the cost effectiveness of antibiotics.Chemotherapy research and practice · 2011
    Article
  6. Health Economics of Antibiotics.Pharmaceuticals (Basel, Switzerland) · 2010
    Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Jean-Blaise WasserfallenHealth Technology Assessment Unit, University Hospital, Lausanne, Switzerland. jwasserf@chuv.hospvd.ch
Françoise Livio
Giorgio Zanetti
University of Lausanne · CH

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Acute rhinosinusitis is a common disease, in both children and adult patients, and happens most often in the setting of a viral infection with or without bacterial superinfection. Although spontaneous resolution is common, antibacterials are often prescribed and have a tremendous impact on costs, either directly or through the emergence of resistance in causative or colonising micro-organisms. The purpose of this work was to review published literature from 1989 to 2002 on antibacterial treatment in acute rhinosinusitis from a clinical and economical perspective. A relatively small number of studies have compared antibacterials with placebo and few have suggested that antibacterials are superior to placebo, except when a bacterial cause is established or in the presence of specific CT-scan findings. On the other hand, 58 randomised controlled trials were published between 1989 and 2002, that compared the relative efficacy of various antibacterials. Most of these studies had serious methodological flaws, and no single antibacterial proved superior to its comparators. Economic data are scarce and indicate cost of disease is high. Of the different treatment strategies assessed symptomatic treatment (patients being treated with antibacterials only if they failed to improve after 7 days) was the most cost-effective approach, compared with treating patients on the basis of specific clinical criteria, empirical treatment (all patients initially treated with antibacterials), or radiology-guided treatment. Cost effectiveness varied with disease prevalence. In conclusion, this pharmacoeconomic review of antibacterial use in acute rhinosinusitis shows the need for improvement in the quality of the studies feeding economic analyses, but suggests that huge financial interests are at stake. Savings achievable, by better targeting patients needing antibacterial treatment, could be substantial, and more practical and precise diagnostic procedures are clearly needed. Acute rhinosinusitis is a typical example of a clinical dilemma in which good clinical practice must be balanced against imperfect information and patients' individual interests balanced against society's interest.

Indexed as

AdultAnti-Bacterial AgentsChildHumansRhinitisSinusitisAnti-Bacterial Agents

Identifiers

PMID15329029
OpenAlexW2060606315

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.