Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39811236›Full record

ReviewCureus2024

A Comparative Review of the Terms Epipharyngitis and Nasopharyngitis in Medical Literature.

Abrahim N Razzak, Yuka Kaizu, Jay Starkey

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Cureus, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Review
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

3 authors.

Abrahim N RazzakSchool of Medicine, Medical College of Wisconsin, Milwaukee, USA.
Yuka KaizuDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Tokyo Women's Medical University, Tokyo, JPN.
Jay StarkeyDepartment of Radiology, Oregon Health and Science University, Portland, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

This review explores the usage of the term "epipharyngitis" in medical literature, particularly in non-English-speaking contexts. The term, although rarely used in contemporary English-language medical literature, may lead to confusion due to its overlap with more commonly used terms like "nasopharyngitis." This review aims to trace the origins of the term, analyze its usage across different languages, and discuss the implications of term differences in clinical practice and medical education.

Indexed as

epipharyngeal abrasive therapyepipharyngitisepipharynxlong covidmedical englishnasopharyngitis

Identifiers

PMID39811236
PMCPMC11731514

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.