ArticleThe Laryngoscope2025
Utilization of Ciprofloxacin-Dexamethasone in the Airway: A Scoping Review.
Article in The Laryngoscope, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Safety Profile of Nebulized Ciprofloxacin-Dexamethasone After Pediatric Airway Surgery.The Laryngoscope · 2026Article
- Utilization of Ciprofloxacin-Dexamethasone in the Airway: A Scoping Review.The Laryngoscope · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveMultiple medical therapies exist to improve outcomes following surgical management of laryngotracheal stenosis. One method involves ciprofloxacin-dexamethasone (CPD) administration into the airway, although minimal information exists on this treatment. This scoping review evaluates the current literature to understand the potential utility of CPD after airway surgery. DATA SOURCES: PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, Scopus, Web of Science. REVIEW
methodsDatabases were searched according to PRISMA guidelines. Studies were excluded if they did not administer CPD in the airway, were solely in vitro or animal studies, or lacked full text availability.
resultsFrom 1340 studies identified, seven met inclusion criteria, and one was added from manual searching. All eight articles were published between 2008 and 2025. Four described nebulized CPD, one discussed intratracheal drops, and three evaluated both. Four studies carefully evaluated CPD to assess efficacy and side effects across an aggregate of 167 pediatric and 53 adult patients. One group demonstrated fewer postoperative bronchoscopies and a shorter hospital stay after pediatric open airway surgery. Another study showed fewer granulation tissue events and earlier decannulation for pediatric tracheostomy patients. Side effects were infrequent, and three of the four groups reported no adverse events. In the fourth study, 4.5% of surveyed pediatric otolaryngologists observed a side effect from CPD.
conclusionAlthough there is a paucity of literature regarding the safety and efficacy of CPD use in the airway, the available data suggest low risks and potential benefits. Further research is needed to assess safety, optimal treatment regimens, and efficacy of this off-label therapy.
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.