↓ Skip to main content

Antibiotics for clinically diagnosed acute rhinosinusitis in adults

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, October 2012
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 (97th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (85th percentile)

Citations

dimensions_citation
82 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
144 Mendeley
citeulike
3 CiteULike
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Antibiotics for clinically diagnosed acute rhinosinusitis in adults
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, October 2012
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd006089.pub4
Pubmed ID
Authors

Marieke B Lemiengre, Mieke L van Driel, Dan Merenstein, James Young, An IM De Sutter

Abstract

In primary care settings, the diagnosis of rhinosinusitis is generally based on clinical signs and symptoms. Technical investigations are not routinely performed, nor recommended. Individual trials show a trend in favour of antibiotics, but the balance of benefit versus harm is unclear. To assess the effect of antibiotics in adults with clinically diagnosed rhinosinusitis in primary care settings. We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library Issue 2, 2012), MEDLINE (January 1950 to February week 4, 2012) and EMBASE (January 1974 to February 2012). Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of antibiotics versus placebo in participants with rhinosinusitis-like signs or symptoms. Two authors independently extracted data and assessed the risk of bias. We contacted trial authors for additional information. We collected information on adverse effects from the trials. We included 10 trials involving 2450 participants. Overall, the risk of bias in these studies was low. Irrespective of the treatment group, 47% of participants were cured after one week and 71% after 14 days. Antibiotics can shorten the time to cure, but only five more participants per 100 will cure faster at any time point between 7 and 14 days if they receive antibiotics instead of placebo (number needed to treat to benefit (NNTB)) 18 (95% confidence interval (CI) 10 to 115, I(2) statistic 0%, eight trials). Purulent secretion resolves faster with antibiotics (odds ratio (OR) 1.58 (95% CI 1.13 to 2.22)), (NNTB 11, 95% CI 6 to 51, I(2) statistic 0%, three trials). However, 27% of the participants who received antibiotics and 15% of those who received placebo experienced adverse events (OR 2.10, 95% CI 1.60 to 2.77) (number needed to treat to harm (NNTH)) 8 (95% CI 6 to 13, I(2) statistic 13%, seven trials). More participants in the placebo group needed to start antibiotic therapy because of an abnormal course of rhinosinusitis (OR 0.49, 95% CI 0.36 to 0.66), NNTH 20 (95% CI 14 to 35, I(2) statistic 0%, eight trials). Only one disease-related complication (brain abscess) occurred in a patient treated with antibiotics. The potential benefit of antibiotics in the treatment of clinically diagnosed acute rhinosinusitis needs to be seen in the context of a high prevalence of adverse events. Taking into account antibiotic resistance and the very low incidence of serious complications, we conclude that there is no place for antibiotics for the patient with clinically diagnosed, uncomplicated acute rhinosinusitis. This review cannot make recommendations for children, patients with a suppressed immune system and patients with severe disease, as these populations were not included in the available trials.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 41 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 144 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Chile 2 1%
United Kingdom 2 1%
Brazil 2 1%
France 1 <1%
South Africa 1 <1%
Belgium 1 <1%
Unknown 135 94%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 25 17%
Researcher 21 15%
Student > Ph. D. Student 17 12%
Student > Doctoral Student 16 11%
Student > Postgraduate 15 10%
Other 33 23%
Unknown 17 12%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 86 60%
Psychology 8 6%
Nursing and Health Professions 6 4%
Social Sciences 6 4%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 5 3%
Other 11 8%
Unknown 22 15%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 45. 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 02 June 2023.
All research outputs
#934,139
of 25,595,500 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#1,838
of 13,156 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#5,360
of 193,386 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#36
of 244 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,595,500 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 96th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 13,156 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 35.8. This one has done well, scoring higher than 86% 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 193,386 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 97% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 244 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 85% of its contemporaries.