↓ Skip to main content

Steroid-eluting sinus stents for improving symptoms in chronic rhinosinusitis patients undergoing functional endoscopic sinus surgery

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, June 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (72nd percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
1 tweeter
facebook
2 Facebook pages
wikipedia
2 Wikipedia pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
15 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
46 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
Steroid-eluting sinus stents for improving symptoms in chronic rhinosinusitis patients undergoing functional endoscopic sinus surgery
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, June 2015
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd010436.pub2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Zhenxiao Huang, Peter Hwang, Yan Sun, Bing Zhou

Abstract

Functional endoscopic sinus surgery (FESS) has become a well-established approach for treating patients with chronic rhinosinusitis (CRS) refractory to medical management. However, the surgical outcome may be compromised by postoperative inflammation, polyposis and adhesions, which often require subsequent intervention. Bioabsorbable, steroid-eluting sinus stents are inserted into the nose, sinuses or both following surgery to prevent stenosis of the sinus openings during the postoperative healing period. The slow release of corticosteroid aims to decrease mucosal oedema and expedite wound healing. Whether a steroid-eluting stent offers any beneficial effects in terms of improving sinonasal symptoms has not been systematically reviewed. To assess the safety and efficacy of steroid-eluting sinus stent placement in CRS patients after FESS. The Cochrane Ear, Nose and Throat Disorders Group (CENTDG) Trials Search Co-ordinator searched the CENTDG Trials Register; Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL 2015, Issue 4); PubMed; EMBASE; CINAHL; Web of Science; Clinicaltrials.gov; ICTRP and additional sources for published and unpublished trials. The date of the search was 14 May 2015. We included all randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing steroid-eluting sinus stents with non-steroid-eluting sinus stents, nasal packing or no treatment in adult CRS patients undergoing FESS. We used the standard methodological procedures expected by The Cochrane Collaboration. We identified no RCTs that met our inclusion criteria. Among the 159 records retrieved using our search strategy, 21 trials had the potential to be included given that they had tested sinus stents, spacers and packing materials for patients with CRS undergoing FESS. However, we excluded these trials from the review because they met some but not all of the inclusion criteria. We are unable to provide evidence to establish whether steroid-eluting sinus stents have potential advantages and disadvantages for patients with CRS undergoing FESS. Future, high-quality RCTs are needed to assess whether or not steroid-eluting sinus stents confer any beneficial effects, over those of surgery alone, when compared to non-steroid sinus stents.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 tweeter 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 46 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 46 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 9 20%
Researcher 7 15%
Student > Postgraduate 4 9%
Student > Doctoral Student 4 9%
Student > Ph. D. Student 4 9%
Other 10 22%
Unknown 8 17%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 16 35%
Nursing and Health Professions 6 13%
Psychology 4 9%
Engineering 3 7%
Computer Science 1 2%
Other 5 11%
Unknown 11 24%

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 04 December 2018.
All research outputs
#3,841,548
of 13,976,728 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#6,714
of 10,784 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#63,995
of 235,780 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#175
of 248 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 13,976,728 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 72nd percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 10,784 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 21.4. This one is in the 37th percentile – i.e., 37% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 235,780 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 72% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 248 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 28th percentile – i.e., 28% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.