ReviewPharmacoEconomics2004
Acute rhinosinusitis : a pharmacoeconomic review of antibacterial use.
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.
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.
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.
Who cites it
6 citing papers in PubMed, 15 citations in OpenAlex.
- Evaluating the Efficacy and Safety of a Nasal Medical Device (NESOSPRAY HE-G) in Acute Rhinosinusitis: A Randomized, Double-Blind, Placebo-Controlled Clinical Trial.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2026Trial
- Cost-effectiveness of mometasone furoate nasal spray in the treatment of acute rhinosinusitis.Primary care respiratory journal : journal of the General Practice Airways Group · 2012Trial
- Comprehensive Review ofPharmaceuticals (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Review
- Preclinical evaluation of Luffa operculata Cogn. and its main active principle in the treatment of bacterial rhinosinusitis.Brazilian journal of otorhinolaryngology · 2016Article
- Factors affecting the cost effectiveness of antibiotics.Chemotherapy research and practice · 2011Article
- Health Economics of Antibiotics.Pharmaceuticals (Basel, Switzerland) · 2010Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.