ReviewLaryngoscope investigative otolaryngology2025
Recommendation for Standardized Exam for Nasal Obstruction.
Review in Laryngoscope investigative otolaryngology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Nasal septal deviation, inferior turbinate hypertrophy, and nasal valve compromise are among the most common etiologies of NAO seen by facial plastic surgeons and otolaryngologists. Discussion: While both validated and non-validated scales and grading systems exist, they are inconsistently used. Further, anecdotally useful tools such as the Cottle maneuver have been adapted for purposes outside of patient care, such as billing. Although these NAO assessment systems have great utility in the diagnosis of nasal pathology, in isolation, they are not robust enough to influence surgical decision-making. Conclusion: In this study, we summarize the existing literature surrounding the nasal exam in cases of obstruction and offer a standardized nasal exam protocol based on grading systems and physical exam maneuvers. Level of Evidence: N/A.
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.