↓ Skip to main content

Cyclamen europaeum extract for acute sinusitis

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, May 2018
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 (74th percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
5 tweeters
facebook
1 Facebook page
wikipedia
1 Wikipedia page

Citations

dimensions_citation
2 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
49 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
Cyclamen europaeum extract for acute sinusitis
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, May 2018
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd011341.pub2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Anca Zalmanovici Trestioreanu, Ankur Barua, Barak Pertzov

Abstract

Acute sinusitis is a common reason for primary care encounters. It causes significant symptoms including facial pain, congested nose, headache, thick nasal mucus, fever, and cough and often results in time off work or school. Sinusitis treatment focuses on eliminating causative factors and controlling the inflammatory and infectious components. The frozen, dried, natural fluid extract of the Cyclamen europaeum plant delivered intranasally is thought to have beneficial effects in relieving congestion by facilitating nasal drainage, and has an anti-inflammatory effect. To assess the effectiveness of topical intranasal Cyclamen europaeum extract on clinical response in adults and children with acute sinusitis. We searched CENTRAL, which includes the Cochrane Acute Respiratory Infections Group's Specialised Register, MEDLINE, Embase, and trials registers (ClinicalTrials.gov; WHO ICTRP) in January 2018. We also searched the reference lists of included studies and review literature for further relevant studies and contacted trial authors for additional information. Randomised controlled trials comparing Cyclamen europaeum extract administered intranasally to placebo, antibiotics, intranasal corticosteroids, or no treatment in adults or children, or both, with acute sinusitis. Acute sinusitis was defined by clinical diagnosis and confirmed by nasal endoscopy or by radiological evidence. Two review authors independently extracted data and assessed trial quality. We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. We included two randomised controlled trials that involved a total of 147 adult outpatients with acute sinusitis confirmed by radiology or nasal endoscopy who were assigned to Cyclamen europaeum nasal spray or placebo study arms for up to 15 days. The risk of selection and detection bias was unclear, as allocation concealment and blinding of outcome assessors were not reported in either study. Attrition was high (60%) in one study, although dropouts were balanced between study arms.Neither study reported our two primary outcomes: proportion of participants whose symptoms resolved or improved at 14 days and 30 days. No serious adverse events or complications related to treatment were reported; however, more mild adverse events such as nasal and throat irritation, mild epistaxis, and sneezing occurred in Cyclamen europaeum group participants (50%) compared to placebo group participants (24%) (risk ratio 2.11, 95% confidence interval 1.35 to 3.29); moderate-quality evidence. The effectiveness of Cyclamen europaeum for people with acute sinusitis is unknown. Although no serious side effects were observed, 50% of participants who received Cyclamen europaeum reported adverse events compared with 24% of those who received placebo.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 5 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 49 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 49 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 9 18%
Student > Master 7 14%
Student > Bachelor 6 12%
Librarian 5 10%
Student > Ph. D. Student 4 8%
Other 9 18%
Unknown 9 18%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 16 33%
Nursing and Health Professions 6 12%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 3 6%
Social Sciences 3 6%
Sports and Recreations 2 4%
Other 9 18%
Unknown 10 20%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 7. 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 December 2019.
All research outputs
#2,464,098
of 14,061,535 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#5,212
of 10,838 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#70,823
of 275,718 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#113
of 175 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 14,061,535 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 82nd percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 10,838 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 21.5. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 51% 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 275,718 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 74% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 175 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 35th percentile – i.e., 35% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.