SynthesisBMJ open2021
Efficacy and safety of omalizumab in chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyps: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials.
Synthesis in BMJ open, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 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
15 citing papers in PubMed, 32 citations in OpenAlex.
- A Case for Anti-IgE Vaccination.Allergy · 2026Review
- Advance in biologics for chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyps.Frontiers in allergy · 2026Review
- An overview of switching biological therapies for chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyposis (CRSwNP).European archives of oto-rhino-laryngology : official journal of the European Federation of Oto-Rhino-Laryngological Societies (EUFOS) : affiliated with the German Society for Oto-Rhino-Laryngology - Head and Neck Surgery · 2025Review
- Which Is the Best Biologic for Nasal Polyps: An Updated Network Meta-Analysis.Clinical and translational allergy · 2025Article
- ARIA-Italy multidisciplinary consensus on nasal polyposis and biological treatments: Update 2025.The World Allergy Organization journal · 2025Review
- A real-life evaluation of SNOT-22 domains in a cohort of CRSwNP patients treated with biologic therapies for 12 months.The World Allergy Organization journal · 2025Article
- Dupilumab Effectiveness in Patients with Severe Allergic Asthma Non-Responsive to Omalizumab.Journal of personalized medicine · 2025Article
- Chronic rhinosinusitis with and without nasal polyps: the state-of-the-art of current treatment strategies and future developments.Frontiers in allergy · 2025Review
- A Comparison of Natural and Therapeutic Anti-IgE Antibodies.Antibodies (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Review
- Biologic Therapies across Nasal Polyp Subtypes.Journal of personalized medicine · 2024Review
- Ciliary Functional Analysis in Chronic Rhinosinusitis with Polyps after Multimodal Intervention: Oral Corticosteroid, Functional Endoscopic Sinus Surgery, and Omalizumab Injection.Case reports in otolaryngology · 2024Article
- New insights into the pathophysiology and therapeutic targets of asthma and comorbid chronic rhinosinusitis with or without nasal polyposis.Clinical science (London, England : 1979) · 2023Review
- Considerations for shared decision-making in treatment of chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyps.Frontiers in allergy · 2023Review
- Omalizumab and cancer risk: Current evidence in allergic asthma, chronic urticaria, and chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyps.The World Allergy Organization journal · 2022Article
- Biological Therapy of Severe Asthma and Nasal Polyps.Journal of personalized medicine · 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 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesTo assess the efficacy and safety of omalizumab for chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyps (CRSwNP) and to identify evidence gaps that will guide future research on omalizumab for CRSwNP.
designSystematic review and meta-analysis. DATA SOURCES: A comprehensive search was performed in PubMed, Embase, Web of Science and the Cochrane Library on 13 October 2020. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing omalizumab with placebo, given for at least 16 weeks in adult patients with CRSwNP. DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS: Two independent authors screened search results, extracted data and assessed studies using the Cochrane risk of bias tool. Data were pooled using the inverse-variance method and expressed as mean differences (MDs) with 95% CIs. Heterogeneity was assessed by the χ
resultsA total of four RCTs involving 303 participants were identified. When comparing omalizumab to placebo, there was a significant difference in Nasal Polyps Score (MD=-1.20; 95% CI -1.48 to -0.92), Nasal Congestion Score (MD=-0.67; 95% CI -0.86 to -0.48), Sino-Nasal Outcome Test-22 (MD=-15.62; 95% CI -19.79 to -11.45), Total Nasal Symptom Score (MD=-1.84; 95% CI -2.43 to -1.25) and reduced need for surgery (risk ratio (RR)=5.61; 95% CI 1.99 to 15.81). Furthermore, there was no difference in the risk of serious adverse events ((RR=1.40; 95% CI 0.29 to 6.80), adverse events (RR=0.83; 95% CI 0.60 to 1.15) and rescue systemic corticosteroid (RR=0.52; 95% CI 0.17 to 1.61).
conclusionsThis was the first meta-analysis that identified omalizumab significantly improved endoscopic, clinical and patient-reported outcomes in adults with moderate to severe CRSwNP and it was safe and well tolerated. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42020207639.
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.