↓ Skip to main content

Randomised controlled trial of rhinothermy for treatment of the common cold: a feasibility study

Overview of attention for article published in BMJ Open, March 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (62nd percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user
q&a
1 Q&A thread
video
1 YouTube creator

Readers on

mendeley
90 Mendeley
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.
Article details
Title
Randomised controlled trial of rhinothermy for treatment of the common cold: a feasibility study
Published in
BMJ Open, March 2018
DOI 10.1136/bmjopen-2017-019350
Pubmed ID
Authors
Abstract

To determine the feasibility of a randomised controlled trial (RCT) of rhinothermy for the common cold. Open label, randomised, controlled feasibility study. Single-centre research institute in New Zealand recruiting participants from the community. 30 adult participants with symptoms of a common cold, presenting within 48 hours of the onset of symptoms. Participants were randomly assigned 2:1 to receive either 35 L/min of 100% humidified air at 41°C via high flow nasal cannulae, 2 hours per day for up to 5 days (rhinothermy), or vitamin C 250 mg daily for 5 days (control). The primary outcome was the proportion of screened candidates who were randomised. Secondary outcomes included: proportion of randomised participants who completed the study; modified Jackson scores from randomisation to 10 days after initiation of randomised regimen; time until feeling 'a lot better' compared with study entry; time until resolution of symptoms or symptom score at 10 days postrandomisation; proportion of organisms identified by PCR analysis of nasal swabs taken at baseline; the patterns of use of the rhinothermy device; estimated adherence of the control group; and rhinothermy device tolerability. In all 30/79 (38%, 95% CI 27% to 50%) of potential participants screened for eligibility were randomised. Rhinothermy was well tolerated, and all randomised participants completed the study (100%, 95% CI 88% to 100%). The reduction from baseline in the modified Jackson score was greater with rhinothermy compared with control at days 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6, with the maximum difference at day 4 (-6.4, 95% CI -9.4 to -3.3). The substantial clinical benefit threshold for modified Jackson score was a 5-unit change. This study shows that an RCT of rhinothermy compared with low-dose vitamin C in the treatment of the common cold is feasible. ACTRN12616000470493; Results.

Login to access the Attention Digest and the Sentiment Analysis related to this output.

Timeline Attention over time Attention Score history
Login to access the full charts related to this output.
Activity
Login to access the full charts related to this output.
X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley demographics

Mendeley demographics

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 90 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Login to view Mendeley reader trends over time.

Geographical breakdown

Geographical breakdown
Country Count As %
Unknown 90 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status
Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 11 12%
Student > Bachelor 9 10%
Student > Master 7 8%
Student > Ph. D. Student 6 7%
Librarian 4 4%
Other 13 14%
Unknown 40 44%
Readers by discipline
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 19 21%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 8 9%
Nursing and Health Professions 5 6%
Engineering 4 4%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 2 2%
Other 9 10%
Unknown 43 48%
Attention Score in Context

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 03 April 2021.
All research outputs
#9,139,234
of 29,149,839 outputs
Outputs from BMJ Open
#13,741
of 27,853 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#130,047
of 350,890 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMJ Open
#379
of 669 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 29,149,839 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 68th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 27,853 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 17.9. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 50% 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 350,890 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 62% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 669 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 42nd percentile – i.e., 42% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.