ArticleAnnals of the Royal College of Surgeons of England2026
The effectiveness of nonsurgical nasal devices in relieving nasal obstruction.
Article in Annals of the Royal College of Surgeons of England, 2026. 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionNasal obstruction secondary to septal deformity is a common problem, for which surgery is the gold-standard treatment. Long waiting times for surgery, however, leave patients in need of effective, patient-led strategies in the interim. Many wearable nasal devices are commercially available for patients to help relieve nasal obstruction while waiting for surgery; however, the literature around their efficacy is limited.
methodsA scoping review of the literature was conducted using Medline, Embase, PubMed and Cochrane Library. This was in accordance with the 2018 PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta Analyses) extension for scoping reviews (PRISMA-ScR).
resultsA total of 186 records were identified from the search, of which 13 met the inclusion criteria. Most studies assessed external nasal devices, in particular the Breathe Right nasal strips, with fewer assessing internal nasal devices. Both devices appear to relieve nasal obstruction; however, objective and subjective outcomes demonstrated greater relief with internal nasal devices. Data on long-term effects were limited.
conclusionsNasal valve devices, in particular internal nasal devices, appear to be an effective and accessible method of relieving nasal obstruction. In patients struggling with symptoms and awaiting surgery, these devices could be recommended by clinicians to offer relief in the interim. Further studies on emerging devices such as magnetic nasal strips, which theoretically could be more comfortable to wear, are needed to allow clinicians to fully counsel patients on potential options for treatment.
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.