Evidence map›Paper›PMID 23700266›Full record

Trial reportEuropean archives of oto-rhino-laryngology : official journal of the European Federation of Oto-Rhino-Laryngological Societies (EUFOS) : affiliated with the German Society for Oto-Rhino-Laryngology - Head and Neck Surgery2014

Comparison of the effect of endoscopic sinus surgery versus medical therapy on olfaction in nasal polyposis.

Mohammad Hossein Baradaranfar, Zeynab Sadat Ahmadi, Mohammad Hossein Dadgarnia, Mohammad Hossein Bemanian, Saeid Atighechi, Ghasem Karimi, Abolhasan Halvani, Nasim Behniafard, Amin Baradaranfar, Tohid Emami Meybodi

Abstract readClinical TrialComparative Study
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Trial report in European archives of oto-rhino-laryngology : official journal of the European Federation of Oto-Rhino-Laryngological Societies (EUFOS) : affiliated with the German Society for Oto-Rhino-Laryngology - Head and Neck Surgery, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
13citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
2.9field-weighted citation impact, top 10% 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

13 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 27 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. [The diagnosis and treatment progress of olfaction disorders in chronic rhinosinusitis].Lin chuang er bi yan hou tou jing wai ke za zhi = Journal of clinical otorhinolaryngology head and neck surgery · 2025
    Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. International consensus statement on allergy and rhinology: Olfaction.International forum of allergy & rhinology · 2022
    Review
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Olfaction in Chronic Rhinosinusitis.Current allergy and asthma reports · 2016
    Review
  9. Review
  10. Comprehensive review on endonasal endoscopic sinus surgery.GMS current topics in otorhinolaryngology, head and neck surgery · 2015
    Review
  11. Observational
  12. Predictors of quality of life outcomes in chronic rhinosinusitis after sinus surgery.European archives of oto-rhino-laryngology : official journal of the European Federation of Oto-Rhino-Laryngological Societies (EUFOS) : affiliated with the German Society for Oto-Rhino-Laryngology - Head and Neck Surgery · 2014
    Article
  13. 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

10 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Mohammad Hossein BaradaranfarDepartment of Otolaryngology, Head and Neck Surgery, Rhinology Research Center, Shahid Sadoughi University of Medical Science and Health Services, Yazd, Iran, rhinology_research@ssu.ac.ir.
Zeynab Sadat Ahmadi
Mohammad Hossein Dadgarnia
Mohammad Hossein Bemanian
Saeid Atighechi
Ghasem Karimi
Abolhasan Halvani
Nasim Behniafard
Amin Baradaranfar
Tohid Emami Meybodi
Shahid Sadoughi University of Medical Sciences and Health Services · IRTehran University of Medical Sciences · IR

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Chronic rhinosinusitis is a common inflammatory condition in western countries. Nasal polyposis has different symptoms such as nasal obstruction, anterior or posterior nasal drip, reduced sense of smell, and facial pain. Medical and endoscopic treatments are the two main treatments for nasal polyposis. Our aim was to compare the efficacy of different methods on olfactory function. This is a non-randomized clinical trial study that was done on 60 patients who were divided into two groups (medical and surgical). Patients were matched based on age, history of smoking, and the severity of obstruction. The radiologist score of Lund-Mackay staging system was used to match patients in two arms of the trial based on the severity of nasal obstruction. Patients in surgery groups underwent functional endoscopic sinus surgery under general anesthesia and then received Fluticasone propionate nasal spray for 8 weeks (400 mcg bd). Patients in the medical group were only prescribed with Fluticasone propionate with the same duration and same dose as mentioned. As a result of treatment protocol, both medical and surgical group experienced improvement in olfactory function but statistical analyses revealed that surgery resulted in better resolution of symptoms. Our observation revealed that combined treatment had a better effect than medical treatment in restoring olfaction in patients with nasal polyposis.

Indexed as

AdolescentAdultAgedAndrostadienesAnti-Inflammatory AgentsChronic DiseaseCombined Modality TherapyEndoscopyFemaleFluticasoneHumansMaleMiddle AgedNasal ObstructionNasal PolypsNasal SpraysAndrostadienesAnti-Inflammatory AgentsFluticasoneNasal Sprays

Identifiers

PMID23700266
OpenAlexW2076487920

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.