↓ Skip to main content

Topical and systemic antifungal therapy for the symptomatic treatment of chronic rhinosinusitis

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, September 2018
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
2 tweeters

Readers on

mendeley
31 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
Topical and systemic antifungal therapy for the symptomatic treatment of chronic rhinosinusitis
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, September 2018
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd008263.pub3
Pubmed ID
Authors

Peta-Lee Sacks, Richard J Harvey, Janet Rimmer, Richard M Gallagher, Raymond Sacks

Abstract

Chronic rhinosinusitis (CRS) is an inflammatory disorder of the nose and sinuses. Since fungi were postulated as a potential cause of CRS in the late 1990s, there has been increasing controversy about the use of both topical and systemic antifungal agents in its management. Although interaction between the immune system and fungus has been demonstrated in CRS, this does not necessarily imply that fungi are the cause of CRS or that antifungals will be effective its management. To assess the effectiveness of topical or systemic antifungal therapy in the treatment of CRS. We searched the Cochrane Ear, Nose and Throat Disorders Group Trials Register; the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL); PubMed; EMBASE; CINAHL; Web of Science; BIOSIS Previews; Cambridge Scientific Abstracts; ICTRP and additional sources for published and unpublished trials. The date of the most recent search was 8 March 2011. All randomised, placebo-controlled trials considering the use of topical or systemic antifungal therapy in the treatment of CRS and allergic fungal sinusitis (AFS). CRS was defined using either the European Position Paper on Rhinosinusitis and Nasal Polyps (EPOS) or American Academy of Otolaryngology - Head and Neck Surgery (AAO-HNS) criteria. We reviewed the titles and abstracts of all studies obtained from the searches and selected trials that met the eligibility criteria. We extracted data using a pre-determined data extraction form. There was significant heterogeneity of outcome data reporting with reports containing both parametric and non-parametric representations of data for the same outcomes. Means and standard deviations for change data were unavailable for a number of trials. Due to the limited reported data, we contacted authors and used original data for data analysis. Six studies were included (380 participants). Five studies investigated topical antifungals and one study investigated systemic antifungals. The risk of bias in all included studies was low, with all trials being double-blinded and randomised. Pooled meta-analysis showed no statistically significant benefit of topical or systemic antifungals over placebo for any outcome. Symptom scores in fact statistically favoured the placebo group. Adverse event reporting was statistically significantly higher in the antifungal group. On the basis of this meta-analysis, there is no evidence to support the use of either topical or systemic antifungal treatment in the management of CRS.

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 31 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 31 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 6 19%
Student > Doctoral Student 4 13%
Student > Master 4 13%
Student > Bachelor 4 13%
Professor 2 6%
Other 5 16%
Unknown 6 19%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 13 42%
Nursing and Health Professions 2 6%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 2 6%
Immunology and Microbiology 2 6%
Psychology 2 6%
Other 4 13%
Unknown 6 19%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 26 October 2018.
All research outputs
#10,893,275
of 13,697,025 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#9,735
of 10,707 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#199,396
of 265,696 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#130
of 146 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 13,697,025 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 10,707 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 21.2. This one is in the 3rd percentile – i.e., 3% 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 265,696 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 13th percentile – i.e., 13% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 146 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 5th percentile – i.e., 5% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.