Trial reportPrimary care respiratory journal : journal of the General Practice Airways Group2012
Cost-effectiveness of mometasone furoate nasal spray in the treatment of acute rhinosinusitis.
Trial report in Primary care respiratory journal : journal of the General Practice Airways Group, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- Antibiotics for acute rhinosinusitis in adults.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2018Pooled it
- Common Cold and Acute Rhinosinusitis: Up-to-Date Management in 2020.Current allergy and asthma reports · 2020Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundAcute rhinosinusitis is a common disease with an increasing incidence rate. It causes substantial costs to the individual and to society through healthcare consumption and absence from work. The use of antibiotics is widespread in the treatment of acute rhinosinusitis, but increasing bacterial resistance is an argument for restricting excessive use of antibiotics.
aimsThe aim of this study was to analyse the cost-effectiveness of mometasone furoate nasal spray (MFNS) compared with amoxicillin or non-active treatment of mild to moderate acute rhinosinusitis in a Swedish setting.
methodsA cost-effectiveness model was developed to capture the costs and health-related quality of life (HRQoL) over a 15-day period. Acute rhinosinusitis was modelled as changes in the Major Symptom Score. The model takes on a societal perspective in a Swedish setting. Efficacy data were taken from a randomised clinical study. The model has three treatment arms: (A) MFNS 200 μg twice daily, (B) amoxicillin 500 mg three times daily, and (C) placebo. Information about resource utilisation and HRQoL was taken from a recent observational study.
resultsCosts were reduced and quality-adjusted life years were increased with MFNS 200 μg twice daily compared with amoxicillin 500 mg three times daily. MFNS was cost-saving or cost-effective compared with amoxicillin or non-active treatment in the sensitivity analyses regardless of the HRQoL measurement used.
conclusionsThis study shows that treatment with MFNS 200 μg twice daily results in lower costs and improved HRQoL in acute rhinosinusitis compared with amoxicillin or self-medication.
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.