↓ Skip to main content

CMAJ

Effectiveness of steam inhalation and nasal irrigation for chronic or recurrent sinus symptoms in primary care: a pragmatic randomized controlled trial

Overview of attention for article published in Canadian Medical Association Journal, July 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (99th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (98th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
65 news outlets
blogs
1 blog
policy
2 policy sources
twitter
54 X users
facebook
12 Facebook pages
googleplus
2 Google+ users
video
1 YouTube creator

Citations

dimensions_citation
17 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
124 Mendeley
Title
Effectiveness of steam inhalation and nasal irrigation for chronic or recurrent sinus symptoms in primary care: a pragmatic randomized controlled trial
Published in
Canadian Medical Association Journal, July 2016
DOI 10.1503/cmaj.160362
Pubmed ID
Authors

Paul Little, Beth Stuart, Mark Mullee, Tammy Thomas, Sophie Johnson, Gerry Leydon, David Rabago, Samantha Richards-Hall, Ian Williamson, Guiqing Yao, James Raftery, Shihua Zhu, Michael Moore

Abstract

Systematic reviews support nasal saline irrigation for chronic or recurrent sinus symptoms, but trials have been small and few in primary care settings. Steam inhalation has also been proposed, but supporting evidence is lacking. We investigated whether brief pragmatic interventions to encourage use of nasal irrigation or steam inhalation would be effective in relieving sinus symptoms. We conducted a pragmatic randomized controlled trial involving adults (age 18-65 yr) from 72 primary care practices in the United Kingdom who had a history of chronic or recurrent sinusitis and reported a "moderate to severe" impact of sinus symptoms on their quality of life. Participants were recruited between Feb. 11, 2009, and June 30, 2014, and randomly assigned to 1 of 4 advice strategies: usual care, daily nasal saline irrigation supported by a demonstration video, daily steam inhalation, or combined treatment with both interventions. The primary outcome measure was the Rhinosinusitis Disability Index (RSDI). Patients were followed up at 3 and 6 months. We imputed missing data using multiple imputation methods. Of the 961 patients who consented, 871 returned baseline questionnaires (210 usual care, 219 nasal irrigation, 232 steam inhalation and 210 combined treatment). A total of 671 (77.0%) of the 871 participants reported RSDI scores at 3 months. Patients' RSDI scores improved more with nasal irrigation than without nasal irrigation by 3 months (crude change -7.42 v. -5.23; estimated adjusted mean difference between groups -2.51, 95% confidence interval -4.65 to -0.37). By 6 months, significantly more patients maintained a 10-point clinically important improvement in the RSDI score with nasal irrigation (44.1% v. 36.6%); fewer used over-the-counter medications (59.4% v. 68.0%) or intended to consult a doctor in future episodes. Steam inhalation reduced headache but had no significant effect on other outcomes. The proportion of participants who had adverse effects was the same in both intervention groups. Advice to use steam inhalation for chronic or recurrent sinus symptoms in primary care was not effective. A similar strategy to use nasal irrigation was less effective than prior evidence suggested, but it provided some symptomatic benefit. ISRCTN, no. 88204146.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 54 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 124 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 124 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 21 17%
Student > Master 12 10%
Other 10 8%
Student > Ph. D. Student 10 8%
Student > Doctoral Student 7 6%
Other 26 21%
Unknown 38 31%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 36 29%
Nursing and Health Professions 19 15%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 6 5%
Social Sciences 5 4%
Psychology 4 3%
Other 12 10%
Unknown 42 34%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 546. 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 14 February 2024.
All research outputs
#45,391
of 25,729,842 outputs
Outputs from Canadian Medical Association Journal
#79
of 9,539 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#898
of 378,901 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Canadian Medical Association Journal
#1
of 99 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,729,842 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 99th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 9,539 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 34.2. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% 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 378,901 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 99 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 98% of its contemporaries.