ArticleBiomedicine hub
Syringe with Nasal Applicator versus Syringe Alone for Nasal Irrigation in Acute Rhinosinusitis: A Matched-Pair Randomized Controlled Trial.
Article in Biomedicine hub. 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, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
BACKGROUND/
aimsNasal saline irrigation is a common procedure to relieve nasal symptoms in upper respiratory tract diseases. There is no consensus on the recommended nasal saline delivery devices. The objectives of this study were to evaluate efficacy, satisfaction, adherence, and adverse effects in patients with acute upper respiratory tract diseases using a syringe with a nasal applicator for nasal irrigation.
methodsPatients with acute nasopharyngitis, acute rhinitis, or acute rhinosinusitis were randomly allocated to use either (1) a syringe with a nasal applicator or (2) a syringe alone to irrigate one nostril. After the patients had completed irrigation with the allocated device in one nostril, they were instructed to perform nasal irrigation using the other device in the other nostril. All patients were instructed to use a syringe with a nasal applicator at home. The efficacy, satisfaction scores, adherence, and adverse effects were recorded.
resultsSixty-four patients were enrolled. The mean age of the patients was 33.95 years (18-59 years). The mean duration of symptoms was 4.80 days. None of the enrolled patients regularly performed nasal irrigation. Forty-two had acute nasopharyngitis, 10 had acute rhinitis, and 12 had acute rhinosinusitis. At baseline, the mean overall efficacy score for the syringe with a nasal applicator was 8.17 ± 1.43, and that for the syringe alone was 5.95 ± 2.02 (MD 2.23,
conclusionUse of a syringe with an applicator for nasal irrigation yielded high scores in overall efficacy.
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.