ArticleThe journal of allergy and clinical immunology. Global2024
Peak nasal inspiratory flow assessment of polyp size and response from SYNAPSE.
Article in The journal of allergy and clinical immunology. Global, 2024. 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.
- Peak nasal inspiratory flow in the assessment of patients with severe chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyps treated with full house endoscopic sinus surgery: a prospective longitudinal study.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 · 2026Article
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: In the phase III SYNAPSE study, mepolizumab plus standard of care reduced total endoscopic nasal polyp score (NPS) versus that with placebo in patients with chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyps. Objective: Our aim was to investigate relationships between NPS and (1) peak nasal inspiratory flow (PNIF) and (2) patient-reported outcomes. Methods: In this Results: Patients with improvements in NPS had greater improvements in PNIF (a median of 50 L per minute [interquartile range (IQR) = 10.5-87.5] with mepolizumab vs a median of 40 L per minute [IQR = 0-85.0] with placebo) than did those patients without improvements in NPS (a median of 0.0 L per minute [IQR = -10.0 to 45.0] with mepolizumab vs a median of 0.0 L per minute [IQR = -30.0 to 30.0] with placebo). Similar results were seen for the following: change from baseline in overall symptoms (a median of -5.8 [IQR = -8.1 to -3.80] with mepolizumab and a median of -4.1 [IQR = -7.0 to -1.2] with placebo with improvement in NPS vs a median of -1.3 [IQR = -6.3 to 0.0] with mepolizumab and a median of -0.1 [IQR = -3.4 to 0.0] with placebo without improvement in NPS); change in nasal obstruction (a median of -5.7 [IQR = -8.2 to -3.5] with mepolizumab and a median of -4.5 [IQR = -7.3 to -1.2] with placebo with improvement in NPS vs a median of -1.3 [IQR = -6.6 to 0.0] with mepolizumab and a median of 0.0 [IQR = -3.6 to 0.0] with placebo without improvement in NPS); change in loss of smell (a median of -2.8 [IQR = -7.9 to 0.0] with mepolizumab and a median of -0.7 [IQR = -4.0 to 0.0] with placebo with improvement in NPS vs a median of 0.0 [IQR = -2.4 to 0.0] with mepolizumab and a median of 0.0 [IQR = -0.3 to 0.0]) with placebo without improvement in NPS); and change in visual analog scale score and 22-Item Sino-Nasal Outcome Test total score (a median of -37.0 [IQR = -52.0 to -24.0] with mepolizumab and a median of -29.0 [IQR = -43.0 to -9.0] with placebo with improvement in NPS vs a median of -16.0 [IQR = -42.0 to 0.0] with mepolizumab and a median of 0.0 [IQR = -27.0 to 0.0] with placebo without improvement in NPS). Conclusion: Improvement in NPS was associated with improvements in PNIF and patient-reported outcomes irrespective of treatment. PNIF could be a useful noninvasive tool for monitoring nasal polyp size.
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.