Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38459984›Full record

SynthesisEuropean 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 Surgery2024

Assessing the effect of absorbable steroid sinus implant: a state-of-the-art systematic review.

Christian Calvo-Henriquez, Ainhoa García-Lliberós, Serafin Sánchez-Gómez, Isam Alobid

Abstract readSystematic Review
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in 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, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
2.9field-weighted citation impact, top 10% of its field
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors at 4 institutions in 2 countries.

Christian Calvo-HenriquezRhinology Study Group of the Young-Otolaryngologists of the International Federations of Oto-Rhino-Laryngological Societies (YO-IFOS), Paris, France.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3580-0967
Ainhoa García-LliberósRhinology Study Group of the Young-Otolaryngologists of the International Federations of Oto-Rhino-Laryngological Societies (YO-IFOS), Paris, France. ainhoagarcialliberos@gmail.com.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-6813-7850
Serafin Sánchez-GómezENT Department, Virgen Macarena University Hospital, Seville, Spain.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5897-7821
Isam AlobidENT Department, Rhinology and Skull Base Unit, Hospital Clinic, Barcelona University, IDIBAPS, CIPERES, Barcelona, Spain.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7204-5599
Atos (France) · FRConsorci Institut D'Investigacions Biomediques August Pi I Sunyer · ESHospital Universitario Virgen Macarena · ESUniversidade de Santiago de Compostela · ES

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesEndoscopic sinus surgery is not a definitive treatment for chronic rhinosinusitis (CRS). The use of sinus stents after surgery to maintain sinus patency and deliver local steroids has gained popularity. The first steroid-eluting bioabsorbable implant (SEBI) approved for this indication, later Propel, was developed in 2011. This state-of-the-art review aims to summarize the available evidence, as well as to point out potential pitfalls and lack of specific analyses to guide future research on this new therapeutic option. DATA SOURCES: Pubmed (Medline), the Cochrane Library, EMBASE, SciELO. REVIEW

methodsNine research questions were defined: Are steroid-eluting Sinus implants useful for the control of CRS symptoms after surgery? Do they improve surgical field healing after CRS surgery? Do they decrease polyp regrowth after ESS? Do they decrease the need for ESS? Are they useful in symptom control as in-office procedure? Are they better than other steroid-impregnated resorbable materials? Do they have a positive impact on olfaction? Are they safe? Are they cost-effective? Retrieved articles were reviewed by two authors.

resultsTwenty nine studies were included: 3 metanalysis, 1 systematic review, 10 randomized clinical trials, 4 quasi-experimental studies, 1 retrospective cohort study, 4 cost studies, 3 case series and 2 expert consensus. The review encompassed a population of 3,012 patients treated with SEBI and 2826 controls.

conclusionsThis is the first state-of-the-art review assessing steroid eluting bioabsorbable stent evidence. Despite the effort in recent years, still several questions remain unanswered. This review will hopefully guide future research efforts to better define the role of SEBI in the otolaryngology practice.

Indexed as

Absorbable ImplantsRhinitisSinusitisChronic DiseaseDrug ImplantsEndoscopyGlucocorticoidsHumansSteroidsTreatment OutcomeDrug ImplantsGlucocorticoidsSteroidsBioabsorbable implantPropelSEBISinuvaSteroid-eluting

Identifiers

PMID38459984
OpenAlexW4392617864

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.