ReviewCureus2021
Allergic Fungal Rhinosinusitis in Saudi Arabia: A Review of Recent Literature.
Review in Cureus, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Persistent presumed allergic fungal rhinosinusitis during tezepelumab therapy with improvement after revision surgery: a case report.Frontiers in allergy · 2026Article
- Patient-centered outcomes for clinical trials in chronic rhinosinusitis with or without nasal polyps and allergic fungal rhinosinusitis.Journal of patient-reported outcomes · 2025Review
- Abducens nerve palsy secondary to allergic fungal sinusitis.Journal of surgical case reports · 2024Article
- Emerging Therapies in the Medical Management of Allergic Fungal Rhinosinusitis.Indian journal of otolaryngology and head and neck surgery : official publication of the Association of Otolaryngologists of India · 2024Article
- Article
- Acute Vision Loss in Patients With Allergic Fungal Rhinosinusitis: A Case Series.Therapeutic advances in allergy and rhinologyArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Allergic fungal rhinosinusitis (AFRS) has been considered an enigma since it was first described four decades ago. Previous research has found that AFRS has multiple definitions and a poorly understood pathogenesis because it overlaps with other conditions and necessitates meticulous work and multiple diagnostic modalities to confirm the diagnosis. However, despite the expansion of medical and surgical treatments, recurrence still occurs. In this review, the recent literature on AFRS cases in Saudi Arabia with relevance to its epidemiology, diagnosis, and management was studied and compared with international data. PubMed, Google Scholar, and Cochrane Library were searched for original research and review articles with local data. There is an evident paucity and contradiction between local studies regarding the epidemiology, diagnostic methods, and management of AFRS. Hence, well-defined randomized controlled trials (RCTs) are needed for the treatment of this chronic recurrent disease.
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.