Trial reportInternational forum of allergy & rhinology2026
Effect of Laser Posterior Nasal Neurolysis for the Treatment of Chronic Rhinitis: A Randomized Controlled Trial.
Trial report in International forum of allergy & rhinology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundTo determine the safety and efficacy of laser ablation of the posterior nasal nerve (PNN) for the treatment of chronic rhinitis.
methodsThis study was a single-center, prospective, single-blinded, randomized sham-controlled trial. Patients with a 24-h reflective Total Nasal Symptom Score (rTNSS) ≧ 5, rhinorrhea ≧ 2, and congestion ≧ 1, were randomized 2:1 to active PNN treatment with a CO
resultsPatients had a mean baseline rTNSS of 8.5 (95% CI, 7.9-9.1) and 8.2 (95% CI, 7.4-8.9) (p = 0.589) in the active treatment (n = 43) and sham control (n = 22) arms, respectively. At 3 months, the active treatment arm had a significantly greater decrease in rTNSS -4.7 (95% CI, -5.5 to -3.9) versus -2.6 (95% CI, -3.4 to -1.8) (p = 0.002). While the responder rate (RR, defined as ≧30% improvement rTNSS) was not significantly higher in the active treatment arm (81.4% vs. 63.6%, p = 0.119), post-hoc analysis of RR (≧ 50% improvement) showed a significantly higher rate of 65.1% versus 31.8% (p = 0.011). There were greater improvements in the PSQI and ESS scores for the active arm over the sham arm at follow-ups. (p = 0.041 and 0.005, respectively).
conclusionsThe CO
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.