ArticleIndian journal of otolaryngology and head and neck surgery : official publication of the Association of Otolaryngologists of India2023
Biologic Therapies in Chronic Rhinosinusitis with Nasal Polyposis: Overview of Systematic Reviews and Updated Systematic Review.
Article in Indian journal of otolaryngology and head and neck surgery : official publication of the Association of Otolaryngologists of India, 2023. 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, 1 citations in OpenAlex.
- Evaluation of extended dupilumab dosing intervals Q2W (biweekly) versus Q4W (monthly) in chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyposis: a real-world study from Saudi Arabia : Extended dupilumab dosing in 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 · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors at 7 institutions in 4 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objectives: Chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyposis (CRSwNP) is a highly prevalent and challenging disease to manage. Several systematic reviews (SRs) have been carried out to evaluate the efficacy and safety of biologic therapies. We aimed to evaluate the current and available evidence of the biologics in treating CRSwNP. Data Source: Systematic Review of three electronic databases. Review Methods: Following the PRISMA Statement, the authors explored three main databases through February 2020 for pertinent SRs and meta-analyses (MAs) as well as experimental and observational studies. A Measurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews Version-2 (AMSTAR-2), was employed to evaluate the quality of methodology of SRs and MAs. Results: A Total of five SRs were included in this overview. The AMSTAR-2 final summary was moderate to critically low. Although conflicting findings were reported, anti-immunoglobulin E (Anti-IgE) and anti-interleukin-4 (Anti-IL-4) were superior to placebo for improving total nasal polyp (NP) score, particularly in patients with asthma. Findings of the included reviews revealed that both sinus opacification and the Lund-Mackay (LMK) total scores significantly improved after biologics use. Subjective quality-of-life (QoL) assessment provided by general and specific questionnaires illustrated favorable results of biologics for CRSwNP, whereas no significant adverse events were reported. Conclusion: The current findings support the use of biologics for CRSwNP patients. However, the evidence for their use in such patients should be cautiously adopted because of the questionable evidence. Supplementary Information: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s12070-022-03144-8.
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.