↓ Skip to main content

Systemic antibiotics for chronic rhinosinusitis without nasal polyps in adults

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, April 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
1 tweeter
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
1 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
35 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
Systemic antibiotics for chronic rhinosinusitis without nasal polyps in adults
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, April 2016
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd008233.pub3
Pubmed ID
Authors

Patorn Piromchai, Sanguansak Thanaviratananich, Malinee Laopaiboon

Abstract

Chronic rhinosinusitis (CRS) is a common health problem which significantly affects quality of life. A wide range of medical and surgical therapies have been used to treat CRS. Both systemic and topical antibiotics are used with the aim of eliminating infection and inflammation, altering bacterial biofilm formation, reversing ostial occlusion and improving symptoms. Various groups of systemic antibiotics have been studied; clinical cure rates reported are inconsistent and range from 50% to 95%. To determine the effectiveness and adverse reactions associated with systemic antibiotic therapy for CRS in adults. We searched the Cochrane ENT Group Trials Register; CENTRAL (2010, Issue 2); PubMed; EMBASE; CINAHL; Web of Science; BIOSIS Previews; Cambridge Scientific Abstracts; ISRCTN and additional sources for published and unpublished trials. The date of the most recent search was 10 June 2010. Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing systemic antibiotics with placebo for chronic rhinosinusitis in adults. Two authors extracted data independently, compared results and resolved disagreements by discussion. We assessed treatment effect by calculating the risk ratio (RR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) of cure at a specific time point for each trial. We used mean difference (MD) and 95% CI for continuous variables (severity scores, duration of symptoms, etc.). We included one study involving 64 patients. We assessed the overall risk of bias in this study as high. The study reported that roxithromycin could reduce the mean response score of patients by 0.73 points on a 1 to 6-point scale (95% CI 0.32 to 1.14, P = 0.0005) compared to those on placebo at three months after the start of treatment. This study also used sinonasal outcome test-20 (SNOT-20) comparing between pre and post-treatment at six, 12 and 24 weeks. The mean change in SNOT-20 from baseline at 24 weeks in the roxithromycin group was not significantly more than in the placebo group, at 0.27 points (95% CI -0.24 to 0.78, P = 0.30) on a 0 to 5-point scale. There is limited evidence from one small study to support the use of systemic antibiotics for the curative treatment of chronic rhinosinusitis in adults. Further good quality trials, with large sample sizes, are needed to evaluate the use of antibiotics in chronic rhinosinusitis.

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

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 35 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 8 23%
Student > Master 5 14%
Researcher 5 14%
Professor 4 11%
Professor > Associate Professor 2 6%
Other 7 20%
Unknown 4 11%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 24 69%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 1 3%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 1 3%
Nursing and Health Professions 1 3%
Environmental Science 1 3%
Other 4 11%
Unknown 3 9%

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 April 2016.
All research outputs
#9,618,932
of 12,527,219 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#8,686
of 8,923 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#168,196
of 262,836 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#143
of 163 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,527,219 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 19th percentile – i.e., 19% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 8,923 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 10th percentile – i.e., 10% 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 262,836 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 30th percentile – i.e., 30% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 163 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 8th percentile – i.e., 8% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.