| Title |
Pharmacological Management of Chronic Rhinosinusitis: Current and Evolving Treatments
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Drugs, August 2017
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s40265-017-0803-4 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Daniel M. Beswick, Stacey T. Gray, Timothy L. Smith |
| Abstract |
Chronic rhinosinusitis (CRS) is an inflammatory sinonasal condition with multiple etiologic factors that is associated with a vast economic cost. Treatment is most frequently pharmacologic and has centered on agents that ameliorate inflammation, decrease bacterial or pathogen load, and facilitate egress of mucus or purulence from the sinonasal cavity. Nasal saline irrigations, topical nasal steroids, certain antibiotics, and systemic steroids have shown some efficacy in the management of CRS. Recently, biologic therapeutics that target specific inflammatory pathways associated with subsets of CRS have been developed and evaluated. Early data evaluating these biologic treatments suggest a potential role in treating a subset of CRS with refractory, poorly controlled disease. Additional studies are necessary to identify which patients would benefit most from biologic therapies and to assess the cost of these therapies compared with the benefit they provide. This review describes the pathophysiology of CRS and summarizes both established and novel biologic pharmacologic treatments. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 7 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| South Africa | 2 | 29% |
| United States | 1 | 14% |
| Ecuador | 1 | 14% |
| Spain | 1 | 14% |
| Unknown | 2 | 29% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 6 | 86% |
| Scientists | 1 | 14% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 26 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 26 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 4 | 15% |
| Student > Master | 4 | 15% |
| Student > Bachelor | 3 | 12% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 1 | 4% |
| Unspecified | 1 | 4% |
| Other | 2 | 8% |
| Unknown | 11 | 42% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 10 | 38% |
| Unspecified | 1 | 4% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 1 | 4% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 1 | 4% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 1 | 4% |
| Other | 1 | 4% |
| Unknown | 11 | 42% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 20 November 2018.
All research outputs
#6,967,592
of 22,999,744 outputs
Outputs from Drugs
#1,228
of 3,287 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#109,937
of 315,948 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Drugs
#9
of 29 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,999,744 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 69th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,287 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.0. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 62% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 315,948 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 64% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 29 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 68% of its contemporaries.