↓ Skip to main content

Saline irrigation for chronic rhinosinusitis

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

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (96th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (85th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
blogs
6 blogs
twitter
25 tweeters
facebook
3 Facebook pages
wikipedia
1 Wikipedia page

Citations

dimensions_citation
89 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
118 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
Saline irrigation for chronic rhinosinusitis
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, April 2016
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd011995.pub2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Lee Yee Chong, Karen Head, Claire Hopkins, Carl Philpott, Simon Glew, Glenis Scadding, Martin J Burton, Anne GM Schilder

Abstract

This review is one of six looking at the primary medical management options for patients with chronic rhinosinusitis.Chronic rhinosinusitis is common and is characterised by inflammation of the lining of the nose and paranasal sinuses leading to nasal blockage, nasal discharge, facial pressure/pain and loss of sense of smell. The condition can occur with or without nasal polyps. Nasal saline irrigation is commonly used to improve patient symptoms. To evaluate the effects of saline irrigation in patients with chronic rhinosinusitis. The Cochrane ENT Information Specialist searched the ENT Trials Register; Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL 2015, Issue 9); MEDLINE; EMBASE; ClinicalTrials.gov; ICTRP and additional sources for published and unpublished trials. The date of the search was 30 October 2015. Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) with a follow-up period of at least three months comparing saline delivered to the nose by any means (douche, irrigation, drops, spray or nebuliser) with (a) placebo, (b) no treatment or (c) other pharmacological interventions. We used the standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. Our primary outcomes were disease-specific health-related quality of life (HRQL), patient-reported disease severity and the commonest adverse event - epistaxis. Secondary outcomes included general HRQL, endoscopic nasal polyp score, computerised tomography (CT) scan score and the adverse events of local irritation and discomfort. We used GRADE to assess the quality of the evidence for each outcome; this is indicated in italics. We included two RCTs (116 adult participants). One compared large-volume (150 ml) hypertonic (2%) saline irrigation with usual treatment over a six-month period; the other compared 5 ml nebulised saline twice a day with intranasal corticosteroids, treating participants for three months and evaluating them on completion of treatment and three months later. Large-volume, hypertonic nasal saline versus usual careOne trial included 76 adult participants (52 intervention, 24 control) with or without polyps.Disease-specific HRQL was reported using the Rhinosinusitis Disability Index (RSDI; 0 to 100, 100 = best quality of life). At the end of three months of treatment, patients in the saline group were better than those in the placebo group (mean difference (MD) 6.3 points, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.89 to 11.71) and at six months there was a greater effect (MD 13.5 points, 95% CI 9.63 to 17.37). We assessed the evidence to be of low quality for the three months follow-up and very low quality for the six months follow-up. Patient-reported disease severity was evaluated using a "single-item sinus symptom severity assessment" but the range of scores is not stated, making it impossible for us to determine the meaning of the data presented.No adverse effects data were collected in the control group but 23% of participants in the saline group experienced side effects including epistaxis. General HRQL was measured using SF-12 (0 to 100, 100 = best quality of life). No difference was found after three months of treatment (low quality evidence) but at six months there was a small difference favouring the saline group, which may not be of clinical significance and has high uncertainty (MD 10.5 points, 95% CI 0.66 to 20.34) (very low quality evidence). Low-volume, nebulised saline versus intranasal corticosteroidsOne trial included 40 adult participants with polyps. Our primary outcome of disease-specific HRQL was not reported. At the end of treatment (three months) the patients who had intranasal corticosteroids had less severe symptoms (MD -13.50, 95% CI -14.44 to -12.56); this corresponds to a large effect size. We assessed the evidence to be of very low quality. The two studies were very different in terms of included populations, interventions and comparisons and so it is therefore difficult to draw conclusions for practice. The evidence suggests that there is no benefit of a low-volume (5 ml) nebulised saline spray over intranasal steroids. There is some benefit of daily, large-volume (150 ml) saline irrigation with a hypertonic solution when compared with placebo, but the quality of the evidence is low for three months and very low for six months of treatment.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 25 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 118 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Japan 1 <1%
Unknown 117 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 21 18%
Student > Master 19 16%
Researcher 15 13%
Student > Ph. D. Student 14 12%
Student > Postgraduate 9 8%
Other 24 20%
Unknown 16 14%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 57 48%
Nursing and Health Professions 11 9%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 6 5%
Psychology 5 4%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 4 3%
Other 11 9%
Unknown 24 20%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 62. 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 03 February 2020.
All research outputs
#306,262
of 14,291,926 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#772
of 10,942 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#9,799
of 262,587 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#27
of 182 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 14,291,926 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 97th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 10,942 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 21.8. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 92% 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 262,587 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 96% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 182 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 85% of its contemporaries.