Trial reportIranian journal of medical sciences2022
Introducing a Novel Combination Therapy with Macrolides for the Treatment of Chronic Rhinosinusitis: A Randomized Controlled Trial.
Trial report in Iranian journal of medical sciences, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- Gallic acid synergistically enhances the antibacterial activity of azithromycin in MRSA.International microbiology : the official journal of the Spanish Society for Microbiology · 2025Article
- The Mechanism of Action and Clinical Efficacy of Low-Dose Long-Term Macrolide Therapy in Chronic Rhinosinusitis.International journal of molecular sciences · 2023Review
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: Macrolides have shown beneficial effects in the treatment of chronic rhinosinusitis (CRS). This study aimed to compare the effect of azithromycin and clarithromycin in combination with conventional therapies for the treatment of CRS. Methods: This single-blind randomized controlled trial was conducted during 2018-2019 at the Otorhinolaryngology Clinic of Shahid Mohammadi Hospital, Bandar Abbas, Iran. Out of 102 selected patients, 90 were included in the analysis. Patients were selected through convenience sampling and randomly assigned to two equal groups. In addition to conventional therapies (nasal irrigation, betamethasone injection, oxymetazoline and fluticasone spray, guaifenesin syrup, and steam inhalation), the patients in the clarithromycin group received clarithromycin 500 mg tablets twice daily for four weeks. The other group received azithromycin 500 mg tablets daily for four weeks. Patients' symptoms were evaluated pre- and post-intervention, and the Lund-Mackay (LM) scoring system was used for the staging of CRS based on computed tomography scan findings. Data were analyzed using SPSS software, and P<0.05 was considered statistically significant. Results: Patients in both groups were comparable in terms of age and sex. Complete resolution of symptoms was significantly higher in the azithromycin group than the clarithromycin group (71.1% vs. 24.4%, P<0.001). Baseline LM scores did not differ significantly between the groups (P=0.120). However, post-intervention, LM scores reduced considerably in both groups, but the change was significantly higher in the azithromycin group (P<0.001). Conclusion: In combination with conventional therapies for CRS in adults, a four-week course of treatment with azithromycin is more effective than clarithromycin.
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.