Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35720767›Full record

ReviewOTO open

Optimal Device and Regimen of Nasal Saline Treatment for Sinonasal Diseases: Systematic Review.

Wirach Chitsuthipakorn, Dichapong Kanjanawasee, Minh P Hoang, Kachorn Seresirikachorn, Kornkiat Snidvongs

Open access · goldAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in OTO open. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
2.4field-weighted citation impact, top 10% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

7 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 14 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Electrolyte-rich saline solutions significantly improve nasal epithelial repair, ciliary beating and epithelial inflammation vs. normal saline.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 · 2026
    Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Perspectives in Therapy of Chronic Rhinosinusitis.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022
    Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.

Wirach ChitsuthipakornCenter of Excellence in Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, Rajavithi Hospital, Bangkok, Thailand.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9787-6767
Dichapong KanjanawaseeCenter of Research Excellence in Allergy and Immunology, Faculty of Medicine Siriraj Hospital, Mahidol University, Bangkok, Thailand.
Minh P HoangDepartment of Otolaryngology, Hue University of Medicine and Pharmacy, Hue University, Hue, Vietnam.
Kachorn SeresirikachornDepartment of Otolaryngology, Faculty of Medicine, Chulalongkorn University, Bangkok, Thailand.
Kornkiat SnidvongsDepartment of Otolaryngology, Faculty of Medicine, Chulalongkorn University, Bangkok, Thailand.
Chulalongkorn University · THRajavithi Hospital · THSiriraj Hospital · TH

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Objective: This review aimed to systematically determine the optimal nasal saline regimen for different types of sinonasal diseases. Data Sources: PubMed, Embase, SCOPUS, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, ClinicalTrials.gov. The last search was on December 6, 2021. Review Methods: Study selection was done by 2 independent authors. Randomized controlled trials and meta-analyses were included. The effects of nasal saline treatment through various devices, saline tonicities, and buffer statuses were evaluated in patients with allergic and nonallergic rhinitis, acute and chronic rhinosinusitis (CRS), CRS with cystic fibrosis, and postoperative care, including septoplasty/turbinoplasty and endoscopic sinus surgery. Results: Sixty-nine studies were included: 10 meta-analyses and 59 randomized controlled trials. For allergic rhinitis, large-volume devices (≥60 mL) were effective for treating adults, while low-volume devices (5-59 mL) were effective for children. Isotonic saline was preferred over hypertonic saline due to fewer adverse events. For acute rhinosinusitis, saline irrigation was beneficial in children, but it was an option for adults. Large-volume devices were more effective, especially in the common cold subgroup. For CRS, large-volume devices were effective for adults, but saline drop was the only regimen that had available data in children. Buffered isotonic saline was more tolerable than nonbuffered or hypertonic saline. The data for CRS with cystic fibrosis and nonallergic rhinitis were limited. For postoperative care, buffered isotonic saline delivered by large-volume devices was effective. Conclusion: Nasal saline treatment is recommended for treating most sinonasal diseases. Optimal delivery methods for each condition should be considered to achieve therapeutic effects of saline treatment.

Indexed as

irrigationnoserecommendationsalinesinusitis

Identifiers

PMID35720767
PMCPMC9201324
OpenAlexW4282828869

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.