SynthesisCurrent allergy and asthma reports2026
Psychophysical Olfactory Outcomes After Biologic Therapy for Chronic Rhinosinusitis with Nasal Polyps: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
Synthesis in Current allergy and asthma reports, 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purpose of reviewSmell loss is among the most debilitating symptoms of chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyps (CRSwNP). We aimed to synthesize current evidence on the smell-restoring efficacy of biologics, focusing on outcomes measured by psychophysical tests. RECENT
findingsBiologics mark a paradigm shift in the management of refractory CRSwNP, offering targeted, effective and safe treatment options. However, their relative impact on psychophysical smell outcomes remains uncertain. With new biologics emerging and real-world evidence accumulating, a comprehensive evaluation is warranted. This systematic review and meta-analysis included eight RCTs (n = 2,081) and an additional review of 20 cohorts (n = 1,681). Among RCTs, biologic therapy produced a large, pooled effect in psychophysical olfactory outcomes (standardised mean difference (SMD) = 1.00, 95% CI = 0.62–1.38, p < 0.0001). Effects differed between agents; dupilumab and tezepelumab produced the largest improvements (SMDs: 1.53, and 1.25, respectively). Omalizumab and telikibart each yielded modest, but statistically significant improvements (SMDs: 0.56, and 0.71, respectively). Mepolizumab and benralizumab did not show statistically significant effects (SMDs: 0.13, and 0.25, respectively). The cohort studies supported a large effect of dupilumab (SMD = 1.57) but focused almost exclusively on dupilumab (19 out of 20 studies). Tezepelumab and dupilumab appear most effective for smell improvement based on available evidence. Head-to-head trials are warranted to more precisely clarify comparative efficacy.
Indexed as
Identifiers
41903052What 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.