ArticlePeerJ2019
Effectiveness of nasal irrigation devices: a Thai multicentre survey.
Article in PeerJ, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT05348148 (Camillian Saint Mary's Hospital Luodong), which is not on this map. Cited by 5 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.
Camillian Saint Mary's Hospital Luodong
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- A large-volume low-pressure nasal irrigation delivers drug into the nasal cavity? An in vivo study.Drug delivery and translational research · 2024Article
- Essentials in saline pharmacology for nasal or respiratory hygiene in times of COVID-19.European journal of clinical pharmacology · 2021Review
- The minimum effective dose of abobotulinum toxin A injection for allergic rhinitis: A dose-escalation randomized controlled trial.Laryngoscope investigative otolaryngology · 2021Article
- A multicenter survey on the effectiveness of nasal irrigation devices in rhinosinusitis patients.Laryngoscope investigative otolaryngology · 2020Article
- 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundNasal irrigation is widely used as an adjunctive treatment for nasal diseases. There is little evidence regarding the efficacy of the devices used in this procedure. The objective of this survey was to evaluate the effectiveness of nasal irrigation devices based on the experiences of patients and physicians.
methodsWe conducted a multicentre survey study between November 2017 and October 2018. Physician and patient questionnaires were developed based on the available literature and expert opinion. The physician questionnaire was submitted to the Otolaryngology residents and staff of each centre and their network. The physicians were also asked to distribute the patient questionnaire to their patients.
resultsInformation regarding 331 devices used by the patients was collected. The mean age of the patients was 45.46 ± 17.19 years (from 5 to 81). Roughly half were male, and half were female (48.6%: 51.4%). Among the high-pressure devices, we found that the high-pressure large-volume nasal irrigation devices yielded significantly higher symptom scores in seven of 12 domains (
conclusionsThis survey supports the regular use of nasal irrigation, particularly with large-volume high-pressure devices, as an effective treatment for nasal disease. It may be effective at clearing nasal secretion, improve nasal congestion, decrease post-nasal drip, improve sinus pain or headache, improve taste and smell, and improve sleep quality. It could be used by patients with good compliance and minimal side effects.
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.