ReviewTherapeutics and clinical risk management2025
Chronic Rhinosinusitis with Nasal Polyps and Biologics: A Call for Better Data Standardisation and Presentation in Clinical Studies.
Review in Therapeutics and clinical risk management, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Rethinking Monospecific Antibody Therapy in Chronic Rhinosinusitis with Nasal Polyps: Dual- and Multispecific Antibodies.Clinical reviews in allergy & immunology · 2026Review
- Optimizing Biologic Treatment Selection in Chronic Rhinosinusitis with Nasal Polyps: A Network Meta-Analysis of Efficacy and Safety Across 22 RCTs.Pharmaceuticals (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Review
- Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyps (CRSwNP) is often severe, debilitating and difficult to treat. Recent randomised control trials (RCTs) of biologics that target key inflammatory pathways have demonstrated clinical efficacy in treating CRSwNP. Such RCTs must facilitate meta-analysis. Here we report the need for urgent improvement in double-blind randomised controlled trials of biologics in CRSwNP, having previously undertaken a systematic review and meta-analysis of such studies. The RCTs included in that systematic review did not conform to a standard study design. Patient selection criteria was not consistent in studies with several heterogeneous disease subgroups of CRSwNP patients present in each study. Different durations of treatment and variable outcome measures also made the comparative assessment of efficacy between different biologics difficult. Data presentation to allow extraction for meta-analysis was not always clear, such that on occasion selected data sets or even an entire RCT had to be excluded from further evaluation. As such, the high heterogeneity between studies made the overall interpretation of the findings difficult. We make an urgent call to design and conduct future RCTS of biologics in CRSwNP in a more standardised manner, and to present data in a clear way that is easily extractable. This will facilitate more inclusive and thus robust evaluation and interpretation via meta-analysis, which will in turn enable clearer insight into which CRSwNP patient subgroups might benefit from specific biologics and thus achieve better clinical 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.