SynthesisEuropean 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 Surgery2015
The effectiveness topical amphotericin B in the management of chronic rhinosinusitis: a meta-analysis.
Synthesis 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, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 12 citations in OpenAlex.
- Clinical Practice Guideline: Nasal Irrigation for Chronic Rhinosinusitis in Adults.Clinical and experimental otorhinolaryngology · 2022Guideline
- The role of infection and antibiotics in chronic rhinosinusitis.Laryngoscope investigative otolaryngology · 2017Review
- Evidence and evidence gaps in therapies of nasal obstruction and rhinosinusitis.GMS current topics in otorhinolaryngology, head and neck surgery · 2016Review
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
Chronic rhinosinusitis (CRS) is believed to be the result of an exaggerated reaction to fungi in the nasal mucosa, and topical amphotericin B (AMB) is a commonly used treatment. The purpose of this study was to perform a meta-analysis of high-quality comparative studies to examine the efficacy of topical AMB for the treatment of CRS. A search was conducted of Medline, Cochrane, EMBASE, and ISI Web of Knowledge until December 31, 2013 using combinations of the search terms chronic rhinosinusitis, human, treatment, antibiotics, nasal irrigation, nebulized, nasal lavage, sinonasal rinses, and antimicrobials. Inclusion criteria were (1) comparative studies, (2) a diagnosis of CRS or chronic sinusitis, and (3) the intervention was a topical antifungal. The primary outcome measure was quality of life (QOL), and the secondary was nasal endoscopy score. Of 235 article initially identified, five randomized controlled trials were included in the meta-analysis. Analysis of four studies with complete QOL data found no difference between treatment and placebo groups [standard difference in means 0.78, 95 % confidence interval (CI) -0.25 to 1.81, P = 0.138]. Analysis of four studies with complete nasal endoscopy score data found no difference between the treatment and placebo groups (standard difference in means 0.34, 95 % CI -0.08 to 0.76, P = 0.117). AMB is not more effective than placebo in improving QOL or nasal endoscopy scores in patients with CRS.
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.