ArticleCureus2025
Physician Preferences and Prescribing Patterns for Hypertonic and Isotonic Saline Solutions in Upper Respiratory Symptom Management: A Multinational Clinical Practice Survey Across 13 Countries.
Article in Cureus, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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.
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
backgroundManaging respiratory symptoms in patients with comorbidities presents complex therapeutic challenges due to the risk of drug interactions and contraindications associated with conventional treatments, requiring careful consideration of treatment options. Recent interest in natural therapeutic alternatives, especially seawater-based nasal sprays, reflects evolving physician attitudes and unmet clinical needs. Despite widespread clinical application, multinational data on physician perspectives toward isotonic and hypertonic saline therapies remain limited, particularly in patients with chronic conditions. This study addresses this gap by evaluating physician preferences and prescribing patterns for saline-based nasal therapies across diverse healthcare systems.
methodsA cross-sectional survey of 398 physicians (specialists 167 (42%), general practice 183 (46%), family practice 48 (12%)) across 13 countries was carried out using online questionnaire methodology. Participants evaluated prescribing patterns and two seawater-based nasal sprays containing exclusively sodium chloride solutions (one isotonic 0.9% and one hypertonic 2.6% concentration) without additional pharmaceutical active ingredients.
resultsMost physicians surveyed reported frequent concerns about prescribing conventional cough, cold, and allergy medications to patients with comorbidities, with 291 (73%) expressing caution regarding pseudoephedrine in cardiovascular or diabetic patients. Seawater-based nasal sprays were highly rated for safety and suitability, with 87-90% of respondents per country emphasizing their appropriateness for use in sensitive populations, including children and pregnant women. Notable international differences emerged, such as a strong preference for corticosteroids in Finland and a pronounced endorsement of nasal saline products in the United Arab Emirates.
conclusionsThese results demonstrate a clear physician consideration for nasal saline and clinically supported respiratory therapies in patients with comorbidities and highlight the necessity of adapting treatment recommendations to local clinical practices and healthcare environments, including saline solutions.
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.