Trial reportBMJ open2026
Chronic rhinosinusitis: a qualitative study of patient and clinician experiences of the MACRO randomised controlled trial of surgical versus medical management.
Trial report in BMJ open, 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
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesTo explore patient and clinician experiences of participation in the MACRO randomised controlled trial (RCT)-which found endoscopic sinus surgery (ESS) to be clinically effective whereas clarithromycin was no better than placebo for chronic rhinosinusitis (CRS)-and to identify barriers and facilitators to the implementation of the trial results.
designQualitative study embedded within the multicentre MACRO RCT. Semistructured interviews with patients and clinicians were analysed using thematic analysis.
setting21 secondary and tertiary ear, nose and throat centres in England and Scotland participating in the MACRO RCT.
participants20 CRS patients (16 with nasal polyps, 4 without) were interviewed approximately 6 months after trial completion, and 17 clinical staff including principal investigators (PIs), associate PIs and research nurses.
resultsThis study explored patients' and clinicians' experiences of the trial to identify barriers and facilitators to implementing the findings. Adopting the outcomes of the trial would involve recommending surgery to more patients with CRS. Yet patient and clinician interviews highlighted polarised views on ESS among patients, between those with positive experiences and expectations of ESS and those expressing fear of complications and hesitancy to receive surgery. During the trial, many participants randomised to surgery reported rapid improvement in symptoms, but with postoperative challenges for some patients including pain, unexpected symptoms and variations in recovery period. Priorities for implementation include providing patients with information about risks and support to make informed choices. Clinicians also reflected on the resource implications for offering ESS to more patients.
conclusionsESS is effective for CRS, but patient hesitancy and recovery concerns persist. Implementation requires clear communication, recognition and respect for individual preferences, tailored support for decision-making and post-surgical care to optimise acceptance and outcomes. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN36962030.
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.