Trial reportBMJ open2018
Randomised controlled trial of rhinothermy for treatment of the common cold: a feasibility study.
Trial report in BMJ open, 2018. 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, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- Rhinothermy delivered by nasal high flow therapy in the treatment of the common cold: a randomised controlled trial.BMJ open · 2021Trial
- Nasopharyngeal Airspace Temperature During Rhinothermy.Respiratory care · 2025Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo determine the feasibility of a randomised controlled trial (RCT) of rhinothermy for the common cold.
designOpen label, randomised, controlled feasibility study.
settingSingle-centre research institute in New Zealand recruiting participants from the community.
participants30 adult participants with symptoms of a common cold, presenting within 48 hours of the onset of symptoms.
interventionsParticipants were randomly assigned 2:1 to receive either 35 L/min of 100% humidified air at 41°C via high flow nasal cannulae, 2 hours per day for up to 5 days (rhinothermy), or vitamin C 250 mg daily for 5 days (control). PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome was the proportion of screened candidates who were randomised. Secondary outcomes included: proportion of randomised participants who completed the study; modified Jackson scores from randomisation to 10 days after initiation of randomised regimen; time until feeling 'a lot better' compared with study entry; time until resolution of symptoms or symptom score at 10 days postrandomisation; proportion of organisms identified by PCR analysis of nasal swabs taken at baseline; the patterns of use of the rhinothermy device; estimated adherence of the control group; and rhinothermy device tolerability.
resultsIn all 30/79 (38%, 95% CI 27% to 50%) of potential participants screened for eligibility were randomised. Rhinothermy was well tolerated, and all randomised participants completed the study (100%, 95% CI 88% to 100%). The reduction from baseline in the modified Jackson score was greater with rhinothermy compared with control at days 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6, with the maximum difference at day 4 (-6.4, 95% CI -9.4 to -3.3). The substantial clinical benefit threshold for modified Jackson score was a 5-unit change.
conclusionsThis study shows that an RCT of rhinothermy compared with low-dose vitamin C in the treatment of the common cold is feasible. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ACTRN12616000470493; Results.
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.