SynthesisThe Laryngoscope2025
Does Choice of Nasal Pack Matter? A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Merocel and Rapid Rhino.
Synthesis in The Laryngoscope, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Does Choice of Nasal Pack Matter? A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Merocel and Rapid Rhino.The Laryngoscope · 2025Pooled it
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesEpistaxis is one of the most common rhinological emergencies. Management often involves nasal packing when initial measures fail. This paper compares Rapid Rhino (RR) and Merocel in the management and prevention of epistaxis. DATA SOURCES: Studies from Embase, PubMed and Medline were included. REVIEW
methodsA systematic review and subsequent meta-analysis were performed, pre-registered on PROSPERO and adhering to PRISMA guidelines. Studies were screened, followed by data extraction and risk of bias assessment. The meta-analysis was performed using Stata. Pain score effect size was based on raw means at packing removal, while rebleeding effect size used Freeman-Tukey's proportion. Pain score at removal and rebleeding requiring repacking was assessed.
resultsThe systematic review yielded 4637 studies for screening, with 51 meeting inclusion criteria. In primary epistaxis, RR was associated with less pain upon insertion and removal. In the surgical setting, RR demonstrated superior hemostasis and greater patient comfort. The meta-analysis demonstrated that for post-surgical packing, RR was significantly less painful on removal than Merocel (Mean = 2.50 [1.72, 3.28] vs. 6.34 [5.58, 7.10]; p = 0.00). Similarly, for primary epistaxis, RR removal was significantly less painful than Merocel (Mean = 2.28 [0.95, 3.61] vs. 4.14 [3.31, 4.97]; p = 0.02). All tests of group differences for rebleeding demonstrated no significant differences between nasal packs.
conclusionRR was found to be significantly less painful upon removal in primary and post-surgical epistaxis. Although the systematic review demonstrates that RR is associated with less bleeding than Merocel, the meta-analysis demonstrated no statistically significant difference.
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.