↓ Skip to main content

Nasal Saline Irrigations for the Symptoms of Acute and Chronic Rhinosinusitis

Overview of attention for article published in Current Allergy and Asthma Reports, January 2013
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (78th percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
2 tweeters
facebook
5 Facebook pages
wikipedia
1 Wikipedia page

Citations

dimensions_citation
26 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
80 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.
Title
Nasal Saline Irrigations for the Symptoms of Acute and Chronic Rhinosinusitis
Published in
Current Allergy and Asthma Reports, January 2013
DOI 10.1007/s11882-013-0339-y
Pubmed ID
Authors

Nils Achilles, Ralph Mösges

Abstract

The use of saline nasal irrigation (SNI) in the treatment of nasal and sinus disorders has its roots in the yoga tradition and homeopathic medicine. In recent years, SNI has been increasingly observed as concomitant therapy for acute (ARS) and chronic rhinosinusitis (CRS). Various devices are employed, such as nasal douches, neti pots or sprays. The saline solutions used vary in composition and concentration. This article gives a current overview of literature on the clinical efficacy of SNI in the treatment of ARS and CRS. It then answers frequent questions that arise in daily clinical routine (nasal spray vs. nasal irrigation, saline solution composition and concentration, possible risks for patients). SNI has been an established option in CRS treatment for many years. All large medical associations and the authors of systematic reviews consistently conclude that SNI is a useful addition for treating CRS symptoms. SNI use in ARS therapy, however, is controversial. The results of systematic reviews and medical associations' recommendations show the existing but limited efficacy of SNI in ARS. For clinical practice, nasal douches are recommended-whatever the form of rhinosinusitis-along with isotonic and hypertonic saline solutions in CRS (in ARS to a limited extent). To prevent infections, it is essential to clean the nasal douche thoroughly and use the proper salt concentration (2-3.5 %). Conclusive proof of the efficacy of SNI in the treatment of ARS is still pending. In CRS, SNI is one of the cornerstones of treatment.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 80 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Italy 2 3%
United Kingdom 1 1%
Unknown 77 96%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 12 15%
Student > Bachelor 10 13%
Researcher 9 11%
Other 8 10%
Student > Postgraduate 7 9%
Other 21 26%
Unknown 13 16%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 46 57%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 4 5%
Engineering 3 4%
Nursing and Health Professions 2 3%
Social Sciences 2 3%
Other 6 8%
Unknown 17 21%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 6. 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 18 May 2020.
All research outputs
#3,643,529
of 15,666,286 outputs
Outputs from Current Allergy and Asthma Reports
#131
of 707 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#34,000
of 157,842 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Current Allergy and Asthma Reports
#4
of 7 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 15,666,286 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 76th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 707 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.2. This one has done well, scoring higher than 81% 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 157,842 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 78% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 7 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 3 of them.