ArticleThe World Allergy Organization journal2023
Revision surgery versus biologic treatment with omalizumab in recurrent chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyps: An analysis of cost-utility and clinical outcomes.
Article in The World Allergy Organization journal, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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
10 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 12 citations in OpenAlex.
- The nature of nasal discharge in chronic rhinosinusitis: a systematic review and meta-analysis using patient-reported outcomes.Acta otorhinolaryngologica Italica : organo ufficiale della Societa italiana di otorinolaringologia e chirurgia cervico-facciale · 2025Pooled it
- Efficacy and Safety of Biologics for Chronic Rhinosinusitis With Nasal Polyps: A Meta-Analysis of Real-World Evidence.Allergy · 2025Pooled it
- Comparison of Dupilumab and Revision Endoscopic Sinus Surgery for Recurrent Chronic Rhinosinusitis with Nasal Polyps: A Retrospective Cohort Study.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Article
- Importance of Smell Loss to Patients With Chronic Rhinosinusitis With Nasal Polyps: Options for Management and Recovery.Clinical and translational allergy · 2026Review
- A Multicenter, Randomized, Controlled Clinical Trial on the Efficacy and Safety of Eucalyptol, Limonene, and Pinene Enteric Capsules in the Treatment of Chronic Rhinosinusitis With Nasal Polyps Postoperatively.Clinical and translational allergy · 2025Article
- Chinese Position Paper on Biologic Therapy for Chronic Rhinosinusitis With Nasal Polyps.Allergy · 2025Review
- Predicting the effectiveness of omalizumab in patients with refractory chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyps comorbid with asthma based on inflammatory biomarkers.The World Allergy Organization journal · 2025Article
- Real-World Evaluation of Dupilumab in the Long-Term Management of Eosinophilic Chronic Rhinosinusitis with Nasal Polyps: A Focus on IL-4 and IL-13 Receptor Blockade.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2024Article
- Cost-utility and clinical outcome analysis of surgery or oral corticosteroids treatment in patients with chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyps.Asia Pacific allergy · 2024Article
- Disease burden and unmet need for acute allergic reactions - A patient perspective.The World Allergy Organization journal · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Both revision surgery and omalizumab are recommended therapies for the treatment of recurrent chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyps (CRSwNP) and can improve patients' clinical symptoms and quality of life (QoL). The aim of this study was to compare the improvement in sinus-related symptoms, QoL, economic cost, and duration cost between treatment with revision-surgery and treatment with omalizumab. Methods: This was a prospective study of patients with recurrent CRSwNP. All patients were asked to complete a 22-item sino-nasal outcome test (SNOT-22), a visual analog scale (VAS), and a 36-item short-form (SF-36) questionnaire at baseline and 6 months after the treatments. Patients were required to document economic costs and duration costs within 6 months and report them at each visit. Results: A total of 44 patients who received the treatment of revision surgery or omalizumab were enrolled in this study. After six months of treatment, the improvements in total SNOT-22 and SF-36 in 8 domains were not different between the 2 treatments. The improvements in rhinologic symptoms, extranasal rhinologic symptoms, and ear/facial symptoms according to the SNOT-22 ( Conclusions: Both revision surgery and omalizumab treatments can improve the clinical symptoms and QoL of patients with recurrent CRSwNP. Patients who underwent revision surgery experienced better improvement in sinus-related symptoms. However, omalizumab treatment clearly showed a benefit in terms of economic cost and duration cost of disease-related care.
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.