ArticleLaser therapy2012
Comparative Study Between Pre-Seasonal and Intra-Seasonal Treatment of Allergic Rhinitis Using a New 808NM Diode Laser System.
Article in Laser therapy, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- Medical devices in allergy practice.The World Allergy Organization journal · 2020Review
- Efficacy of seasonal allergic rhinitis using an 810 nm diode laser system.Laser therapy · 2019Article
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 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND
aimsAllergic rhinitis annually reaches epidemic proportions in Japan, and represents a major problem. The application of the CO2 laser in the treatment of allergic rhinitis was first successfully reported in 1982, but CO2 laser ablation is associated with side effects. The Ohshiro Clinic started using the conventional Nd: YAG laser for the treatment of allergic rhinitis in 1993, and from 2005 we started using a diode laser-pumped Nd: YAG laser with efficacy and safety at least equal to the others. Even more recently, we have adopted a novel 808 nm diode laser, and the present retrospective study examined the difference in of the efficacy rate between the pre-seasonal and intra-seasonal treatment of allergic rhinitis with this system. SUBJECTS AND
methodsOne thousand, two hundred and ten patients primarily presented to the Ohshiro Clinic with allergic rhinitis during the period from December 2010 to April 2011, of whom 531 were selected for blood tests to identify 13 kinds of Japanese allergens including cedar pollen. In the 2010-2011 season, huge clouds of cedar pollen appeared from February 26(th). The subjects were therefore divided into two groups depending on the treatment period, namely the pre-seasonal and intra-seasonal groups, December 1(st), 2010 to February 25(th), 2011 and February 26(th) to April 6(th) 2011, respectively. All patients were treated with the new 808 nm diode laser system.
resultsA high success rate was achieved in both groups, with no significant difference seen regarding the symptoms of rhinorrhea, obstruction, sneezing, quality of life (QOL) or severity.
conclusionsThe 808 nm diode laser offers an excellent solution for the uncomfortable symptoms of allergic rhinitis, and could be equally well applied before or during the Japanese cedar pollen dispersed season.
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.