Trial reportActa bio-medica : Atenei Parmensis2020
A comparison between mometasone furoate nasal spray and intranasal glycyrrhetic acid in patients with allergic rhinitis: a preliminary study in clinical practice.
Trial report in Acta bio-medica : Atenei Parmensis, 2020. 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, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- Immunomodulatory properties of triterpenes.Phytochemistry reviews : proceedings of the Phytochemical Society of Europe · 2022Review
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 4 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Allergic rhinitis (AR) is caused by an IgE-mediated inflammatory reaction consequent to the exposure to the causal allergen. Glycyrrhetic acid (GlyAc) is a natural compound extracted from the liquorice that exerts anti-inflammatory activity. This real-life study compared intranasal GlyAc, present in a medical device containing also glycerol and mannitol, with mometasone furoate nasal spray (MFNS) in 50 adult outpatients with AR. Both treatments lasted 2 months. Endoscopic signs, perception of symptom severity, assessed by VAS, and nasal function measured by rhinomanometry were evaluated at baseline (T0), after one (T1) and two (T2) months. The intergroup analysis showed that at T1 there was no significant difference between groups about the use of decongestants and antihistamines, turbinate hypertrophy and pale mucosa, perception of olfaction and snoring. At T2 there was no significant difference between groups about use of relievers, all endoscopic signs, and perception of nasal discomfort, nasal obstruction, olfaction, and snoring. The intragroup analysis showed that in MFNS group there was a significant change during the entire period of treatment for all parameters except watery rhinorrhea (sign) and ocular discomfort; in GlyAc group there was a significant change during the entire period of treatment for all parameters. In conclusion, this preliminary study, conducted in clinical practice, evidenced that intranasal CysAC plus mannitol was able to significantly improve nasal endoscopic signs, perception of symptoms, and nasal function in patients with AR. Therefore, GlyAc could be a reasonable therapeutic option to control allergic inflammation.
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.