Trial reportMedical science monitor : international medical journal of experimental and clinical research2019
Effect of High-Intensity Focused Ultrasound Versus Plasma Radiofrequency Ablation on Recurrent Allergic Rhinitis.
Trial report in Medical science monitor : international medical journal of experimental and clinical research, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT06272032 (Prospective Multicenter Observational Study and Promotion of the Application of Focused Ultrasound in "Reduction of Hypertrophy" and "Desensitization" for Allergic Rhinitis), which is not on this 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.
Prospective Multicenter Observational Study and Promotion of the Application of Focused Ultrasound in "Reduction of Hypertrophy" and "Desensitization" for Allergic Rhinitis
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed, 11 citations in OpenAlex.
- High-Intensity Focused Ultrasound Therapy Versus Coblation for the Treatment of Inferior Turbinate Hypertrophy: A Clinical Trial.Clinical and experimental otorhinolaryngology · 2023Article
- Medical devices in allergy practice.The World Allergy Organization journal · 2020Review
- The Evolution of Care of Cancers of the Head and Neck Region: State of the Science in 2020.Cancers · 2020Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
BACKGROUND High-intensity focused ultrasound (HIFU) and plasma radiofrequency ablation (PRA) have been used to treat recurrent allergic rhinitis (AR); however, there is a lack of literature comparing the efficacy of these 2 methods. We assessed and compared the therapeutic effects of HIFU and PRA on recurrent AR. MATERIAL AND METHODS We enrolled 66 patients with recurrent AR at West China Hospital of Sichuan University. Visual analogue score (VAS), pain score, rhinoconjunctivitis quality of life questionnaire (RQLQ), and nasal endoscopy were performed to evaluate the therapeutic effect. RESULTS Nasal endoscopy showed that HIFU and PAR reduced the volume of the inferior turbinate, whereas HIFU reduced the amount of nasal secretions in patients. VAS scores showed that HIFU and PRA nasal congestion symptoms were significantly reduced (P<0.05). The preoperative VAS scores for nasal fluid and sneezing were significantly lower in patients receiving HIFU (P<0.05) than in those receiving PRA (P>0.05). HIFU-treated patients had significantly lower postoperative pain scores than those in the PRA group (P<0.05). RQLQ showed activity, sleep, and non-nasal or ocular symptoms, and both HIFU and PRA patients had significantly lower scores (P<0.05). Nasal symptom scores, actual problems, and mood in the HIFU group were significantly worse than those in the PRA group (P<0.05). However, neither treatment had a significant effect on ocular symptoms (P>0.05). CONCLUSIONS Compared with PRA, HIFU can significantly reduce the nasal symptoms of AR patients, improve the quality of life, and can be used as an adjuvant therapy with better therapeutic effect.
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.