ReviewPharmaceutics2023
Maximizing Postoperative Recovery: The Role of Functional Biomaterials as Nasal Packs-A Comprehensive Systematic Review without Meta-Analysis (SWiM).
Review in Pharmaceutics, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- Article
- Article
- Bioprinting in Tissue Repair and Its ENT Applications.Polymers · 2026Review
- Injectable Chitosan Hydrogel Particles as Nasal Packing Materials After Endoscopic Sinus Surgery for Treatment of Chronic Sinusitis.Gels (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Biodegradable Gelatin-Carrageenan Sponges: High-Potential Functional Nasal Packs for Efficient Secretome Delivery.Polymers · 2024Article
- An Analysis of the VELNEZ Nasal Pack's Acceptability and Safety for Use During Nasal Surgery: A Prospective Study.Indian journal of otolaryngology and head and neck surgery : official publication of the Association of Otolaryngologists of India · 2024Article
- Biomaterial Material Applications in Postoperative Surgical Fields of Uvulopalatopharyngoplasty: A Comparative Study.Journal of functional biomaterials · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
Numerous biomaterials have been developed over the years to enhance the outcomes of endoscopic sinus surgery (ESS) for patients with chronic rhinosinusitis. These products are specifically designed to prevent postoperative bleeding, optimize wound healing, and reduce inflammation. However, there is no singular material on the market that can be deemed the optimal material for the nasal pack. We systematically reviewed the available evidence to assess the functional biomaterial efficacy after ESS in prospective studies. The search was performed using predetermined inclusion and exclusion criteria, and 31 articles were identified in PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science. The Cochrane risk-of-bias tool for randomized trials (RoB 2) was used to assess each study's risk of bias. The studies were critically analyzed and categorized into types of biomaterial and functional properties, according to synthesis without meta-analysis (SWiM) guidelines. Despite the heterogeneity between studies, it was observed that chitosan, gelatin, hyaluronic acid, and starch-derived materials exhibit better endoscopic scores and significant potential for use in nasal packing. The published data support the idea that applying a nasal pack after ESS improves wound healing and patient-reported outcomes.
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.