Evidence map›Paper›PMID 21808460›Full record

ArticleActa otorhinolaryngologica Italica : organo ufficiale della Societa italiana di otorinolaringologia e chirurgia cervico-facciale2011

Rhino-Bronchial Syndrome. The SIO-AIMAR (Italian Society of Otorhinolaryngology, Head Neck Surgery-Interdisciplinary Scientific Association for the Study of the Respiratory Diseases) survey.

D Passali, De F Benedetto, De M Benedetto, F Chiaravalloti, V Damiani, F M Passali, L M Bellussi, Working Group

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Acta otorhinolaryngologica Italica : organo ufficiale della Societa italiana di otorinolaringologia e chirurgia cervico-facciale, 2011. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
0.3field-weighted citation impact, top 41% 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

4 citing papers in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Nasobronchial interaction.World journal of clinical cases · 2015
    Review
  4. Article
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

8 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

D PassaliDepartment of Human Pathology and Oncology, ENT Clinic, University of Siena, Italy. d.passali@virgilio.it
De F Benedetto
De M Benedetto
F Chiaravalloti
V Damiani
F M Passali
L M Bellussi
Working Group
University of Siena · IT

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

In spite of the amount of literature demonstrating the relationship between upper and lower airways, both from the anatomical, and pathophysiological point of view, little is known about the epidemiology, diagnosis and treatment of the Rhino-Bronchial Syndrome (RBS). After the publication, in 2003, of a Consensus Report defining the Rhino-Bronchial Syndrome, an interdisciplinary group of experts made up from the Italian ENT Society (SIO) and the Interdisciplinary Scientific Association for the Study of Respiratory Diseases (AIMAR) met again in 2005 in order to study a protocol which would have, as the main tasks, the analysis of RBS signs and symptoms and standardization of the diagnostic approach. A secondary endpoint was to characterize the most effective therapeutic options and to correct the great dyshomogeneity in the therapeutic approaches. With this aim, 9 ENT and Pneumology Centres were selected, based on the ability to multidisciplinary cooperation, availability of useful instrumentation and homogeneous distribution over the entire National territory. Overall, 159 patients were enrolled according to clinical history (major and minor symptoms of upper and lower airways) and inclusion/exclusion criteria. All underwent a two level diagnostic approach. In 116 patients, the diagnosis was confirmed on the basis of I level (rhinopharyngeal endoscopy and basal spirometry, respectively, for upper and lower airways) examination. Allergic and infectious diseases were significantly more frequent (37.9% vs 20.9% and 73.3% vs 46.55, respectively) in patients with a confirmed diagnosis for Rhino-Bronchial Syndrome. Nasal obstruction (93%), rhinorrhoea (75%), cough (96%) and dyspnoea (69%) were the more frequent symptoms. The presence of meatal secretions or polyps were the clinical findings significantly differing at endoscopy in the two groups. After 3 months of treatment, according to "good clinical practice" (inhaled steroids, antibiotics, nasal lavages), 96% of the patients recovered. On the basis of these results, a diagnostic flow-chart is proposed according to which the persistence of some symptoms (cough, dyspnoea, rhinorrhoea and nasal obstruction) should lead the patient to a multidisciplinary and multi-level diagnostic approach by an otorhinolaryngology and a pneumology specialist working together for a definitive diagnosis. The recovery rate of about 94% of patients after 3 months of treatment, stresses the importance of a correct diagnosis.

Indexed as

BronchitisRhinitisSinusitisFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedSyndromeDiagnosisInflammatory cytokinesRhino-bronchial reflexRhino-Bronchial SyndromeTreatmentUpper and lower airways

Identifiers

PMID21808460
PMCPMC3146326
OpenAlexW1481979537

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.