ArticleEndoscopy international open2015
Anterior meatuscopy is more reliable than a sniff test for predicting nasal patency before transnasal endoscopy.
Article in Endoscopy international open, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
- Use of anticoagulant or antiplatelet agents is not related to epistaxis in patients undergoing transnasal endoscopy.Endoscopy international open · 2018Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND STUDY
aimsUnsedated transnasal esophago-gastro-duodenoscopy (UT-EGD) has been performed for at least two decades but many techniques related to the procedure have yet to be standardized. We aimed to develope a simple endoscopic method, anterior meatuscopy, to replace the sniff test for selecting the most patent nasal meatus before UT-EGD. We hypothesized that access to the common nasal meatus (CNM), if confirmed by anterior meatuscopy, was a safer route than the inferior (INM) and middle nasal meatuses (MNM) because it would result in reduced epistaxis, nasal pain, and nasal discharge. PATIENTS AND
methodsWe used anterior meatuscopy and an endoscopic meatus scoring scale (EMSS) to identify the optimal meatus for insertion. We evaluated the EMSS frequency distributions for the INM, CNM, and MNM and the reliability of a sniff test in 1,000 consecutive patients. The adverse effects of passing through the CNM versus the INM and MNM, respectively, were compared.
resultsIn the INM and MNM, the EMSS frequencies were grade I > II > III > 0 whereas those in the CNM were grade II > I > 0 > III. A sniff test was not reliable, given its low sensitivity (63.3 %), specificity (67.3 %), positive predictive value (69.1 %), negative predictive value (61.4 %), and accuracy (65.2 %). Although only 9.2 % of our patients had grade III anterior-to-posterior CNMs, passage through this spacious CNM rather than through the MNM or the INM could significantly reduce epistaxis, nasal pain, and nasal discharge.
conclusionsAnterior meatuscopy is more reliable than a sniff test before UT-EGD. Transnasal endoscopic passage through the endoscopically patent CNM, if detected by anterior meatuscopy, may prevent epistaxis and nasal pain and minimize nasal discharge.
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.