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 Surgery2017
Olfaction in chronic rhinosinusitis: comparing two different endonasal steroid application methods.
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, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 9 citations in OpenAlex.
- Applications of vibrational energy in the treatment of sinonasal disease: A scoping review.International forum of allergy & rhinology · 2022Article
- Olfactory Neuroepithelium in Olfactory Cleft Polyps: Do They Have Any Effect on Olfaction Results After Endoscopic Sinus Surgery?Turkish archives of otorhinolaryngology · 2022Article
- Correlation of mucus inflammatory proteins and olfaction in chronic rhinosinusitis.International forum of allergy & rhinology · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Limited olfactory improvement after topical steroid therapy in chronic rhinosinusitis (CRS) patients might result from restricted drug access to the olfactory cleft. The aim of our study was to investigate the difference between two methods to topically administer steroids with respect to olfaction: (1) conventional nasal spray and (2) a device using pressure and vibration to distribute steroid aerosol endonasally. A prospective study was performed in patients with olfactory impairment due to chronic rhinosinusitis with and without nasal polyps. While the first group used the conventional dexamethasone nasal spray, the second group used the device over a period of 12 days. Olfactory testing was done at 0, 2, and 8 weeks using Sniffin' Sticks test. A significant olfactory improvement was found after 2 weeks of treatment with either steroid (p = 0.005). However, there was no significant difference between the different methods of steroid application. There is a significant olfactory improvement in CRS patients following topical dexamethasone therapy, but no obvious superiority of one of the two ways to administer the steroid.
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.