ArticleCureus2024
Differences Between Patients With Chronic Epipharyngitis With and Without Previous COVID-19 Infection.
Article in Cureus, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Review
- Spatial transcriptomics of the epipharynx in long COVID identifies SARS-CoV-2 signalling pathways and the therapeutic potential of epipharyngeal abrasive therapy.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Article
- Long COVID Following Mild SARS-CoV-2 Infection: A Retrospective Study in a Portuguese Primary Health Care Unit.Cureus · 2024Article
- Autonomic Stimulation Action of EAT (Epipharyngeal Abrasive Therapy) on Chronic Epipharyngitis.Cureus · 2024Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective Epipharyngeal abrasive therapy (EAT) is effective in patients with chronic epipharyngitis who previously had coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). The study aimed to evaluate differences between patients with chronic epipharyngitis with (long COVID) or without a history of COVID-19 (non-long COVID). Methods This is a retrospective study based on the analysis of medical records of patients who visited the Mogitate ENT Clinic in Kawasaki, Japan, for six months from March 2022. Results Patients with long COVID were significantly younger (p=0.018). Fatigue and brain fog were prevalent in patients with long COVID, whereas throat discomfort, postnasal drip, and sputum were more common in those with non-long COVID. Epipharyngeal endoscopic findings in patients with long COVID showed significantly higher scores (p<0.001) compared with patients with non-long COVID. Conclusions The primary differences between patients with long COVID and non-long COVID were age, symptoms, and severity scores of endoscopic findings. The EAT should be aggressively implemented in patients with chronic epipharyngitis with or without COVID-19 infection, as there is no reason not to treat a patient with a condition caused by COVID-19 infection.
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.