ArticleThe Laryngoscope2026
Recurrent Respiratory Papillomatosis Foundation Position Statement on the Management of Adults With RRP.
Article in The Laryngoscope, 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.
- Development of a novel prognostic assessment tool for recurrent respiratory papillomatosis.BMC medicine · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
18 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveWith regulatory approval of HPV-specific immunotherapy for recurrent respiratory papillomatosis (RRP) and growing experience with systemic bevacizumab, a management algorithm incorporating these medical treatments is warranted. DATA SOURCES AND
methodsRRP Foundation (RRPF) Key Opinion Leaders offer a proposed management algorithm for adults with RRP considering published literature and commercial drug availability.
resultsPreventative HPV vaccination should be considered for all patients. Determination of HPV type and pulmonary imaging are important for contemporary RRP patient care and assist in decision making. Risks and benefits of papilloma debulking as needed versus medical management of RRP must be deliberated on a patient case-by-case basis. HPV-specific immunotherapy that induces an HPV-specific T cell response to target the underlying HPV infection that is the cause of RRP is safe, offers the possibility of durable disease control following a short treatment course and is the recommended first-line medical treatment for patients who wish to avoid the risks of repeat procedural management. Papilloma disease control with systemic bevacizumab, which carries defined risks and must be continued for clinical benefit is the recommended second-line medical treatment for patients who do not achieve a complete response with immunotherapy and wish to continue medical management. For patients who elect to be treated with debulking procedures as needed, use of locally-administered adjuvant should be considered.
conclusionThis proposed management algorithm from the RRPF serves as a contemporary resource and information guide for adult patients with RRP and their physicians considering treatment options. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 5:
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.