↓ Skip to main content

Anti-IgE monoclonal antibody therapy for the treatment of chronic rhinosinusitis: a systematic review

Overview of attention for article published in Systematic Reviews, November 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (77th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (65th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
9 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
33 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
Anti-IgE monoclonal antibody therapy for the treatment of chronic rhinosinusitis: a systematic review
Published in
Systematic Reviews, November 2015
DOI 10.1186/s13643-015-0157-5
Pubmed ID
Authors

Chris J. Hong, Adrian C. Tsang, Jason G. Quinn, James P. Bonaparte, Adrienne Stevens, Shaun J. Kilty

Abstract

Several options are available for the treatment of chronic rhinosinusitis (CRS), but disease control remains elusive for many patients. Recently, literature has emerged describing anti-IgE monoclonal antibody as a potential therapy for CRS. However, its effectiveness and safety are not well known. The purpose of this systematic review was to assess the effectiveness and safety of anti-IgE therapy and to identify evidence gaps that will guide future research for the management of CRS. Methodology was registered with PROSPERO (No. CRD42014007600). A comprehensive search was performed of standard bibliographic databases, Google Scholar, and clinical trials registries. Only randomized controlled trials assessing anti-IgE therapy in adult patients for the treatment of CRS were included. Two independent reviewers extracted data using a pre-defined extraction form and performed quality assessment using the Cochrane risk of bias tool and the GRADE framework. Two studies met our inclusion criteria. When comparing anti-IgE therapy to placebo, there was a significant difference in Lund-McKay score (p = 0.04) while no difference was seen for percent opacification on computed tomography (CT). At 16 weeks, treatment led to a decrease in clinical polyp score. No significant difference was seen with regard to quality of life (Total Nasal Symptom Severity (TNSS), p < 0.21; Sinonasal Outcome Test 20 (SNOT-20), p < 0.60), and no serious complications were reported in either trial. Based on the quality assessment, studies were deemed to be of moderate risk of bias and a low overall quality of evidence. There is currently insufficient evidence to determine the effectiveness of anti-IgE monoclonal antibody therapy for the treatment of CRS.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 9 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 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 %
Student > Master 11 22%
Student > Bachelor 8 16%
Student > Postgraduate 8 16%
Other 2 4%
Professor 2 4%
Other 5 10%
Unknown 13 27%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 23 47%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 3 6%
Nursing and Health Professions 2 4%
Immunology and Microbiology 2 4%
Psychology 2 4%
Other 3 6%
Unknown 14 29%
Attention Score in Context

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 30 November 2015.
All research outputs
#5,873,718
of 23,566,295 outputs
Outputs from Systematic Reviews
#996
of 2,048 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#88,264
of 389,992 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Systematic Reviews
#25
of 72 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,566,295 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 74th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,048 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.9. 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 389,992 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 77% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 72 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 65% of its contemporaries.