-
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Sep 2018Acute rhinosinusitis is an acute infection of the nasal passages and paranasal sinuses that lasts less than four weeks. Diagnosis of acute rhinosinusitis is generally... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Acute rhinosinusitis is an acute infection of the nasal passages and paranasal sinuses that lasts less than four weeks. Diagnosis of acute rhinosinusitis is generally based on clinical signs and symptoms in ambulatory care settings. Technical investigations are not routinely performed, nor are they recommended in most countries. Some trials show a trend in favour of antibiotics, but the balance of benefit versus harm is unclear.We merged two Cochrane Reviews for this update, which comprised different approaches with overlapping populations, resulting in different conclusions. For this review update, we maintained the distinction between populations diagnosed by clinical signs and symptoms, or imaging.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the effects of antibiotics versus placebo or no treatment in adults with acute rhinosinusitis in ambulatory care settings.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched CENTRAL (2017, Issue 12), which contains the Cochrane Acute Respiratory Infections Group's Specialised Register, MEDLINE (January 1950 to January 2018), Embase (January 1974 to January 2018), and two trials registers (January 2018). We also checked references from identified trials, systematic reviews, and relevant guidelines.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomised controlled trials of antibiotics versus placebo or no treatment in people with rhinosinusitis-like signs or symptoms or sinusitis confirmed by imaging.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently extracted data about cure and side effects and assessed the risk of bias. We contacted trial authors for additional information as required.
MAIN RESULTS
We included 15 trials involving 3057 participants. Of the 15 included trials, 10 appeared in our 2012 review, and five (631 participants) are legacy trials from merging two reviews. No new studies were included from searches for this update. Overall, risk of bias was low. Without antibiotics, 46% of participants with rhinosinusitis, whether or not confirmed by radiography, were cured after 1 week and 64% after 14 days. Antibiotics can shorten time to cure, but only 5 to 11 more people per 100 will be cured faster if they receive antibiotics instead of placebo or no treatment: clinical diagnosis (odds ratio (OR) 1.25, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.02 to 1.54; number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome (NNTB) 19, 95% CI 10 to 205; I² = 0%; 8 trials; high-quality evidence) and diagnosis confirmed by radiography (OR 1.57, 95% CI 1.03 to 2.39; NNTB 10, 95% CI 5 to 136; I² = 0%; 3 trials; moderate-quality evidence). Cure rates with antibiotics were higher when a fluid level or total opacification in any sinus was found on computed tomography (OR 4.89, 95% CI 1.75 to 13.72; NNTB 4, 95% CI 2 to 15; 1 trial; moderate-quality evidence). Purulent secretion resolved faster with antibiotics (OR 1.58, 95% CI 1.13 to 2.22; NNTB 10, 95% CI 6 to 35; I² = 0%; 3 trials; high-quality evidence). However, 13 more people experienced side effects with antibiotics compared to placebo or no treatment (OR 2.21, 95% CI 1.74 to 2.82; number needed to treat for an additional harmful outcome (NNTH) 8, 95% CI 6 to 12; I² = 16%; 10 trials; high-quality evidence). Five fewer people per 100 will experience clinical failure if they receive antibiotics instead of placebo or no treatment (Peto OR 0.48, 95% CI 0.36 to 0.63; NNTH 19, 95% CI 15 to 27; I² = 21%; 12 trials; high-quality evidence). A disease-related complication (brain abscess) occurred in one participant (of 3057) one week after receiving open antibiotic therapy (clinical failure, control group).
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
The potential benefit of antibiotics to treat acute rhinosinusitis diagnosed either clinically (low risk of bias, high-quality evidence) or confirmed by imaging (low to unclear risk of bias, moderate-quality evidence) is marginal and needs to be seen in the context of the risk of adverse effects. Considering antibiotic resistance, and the very low incidence of serious complications, we conclude there is no place for antibiotics for people with uncomplicated acute rhinosinusitis. We could not draw conclusions about children, people with suppressed immune systems, and those with severe sinusitis, because these populations were not included in the available trials.
Topics: Acute Disease; Adult; Anti-Bacterial Agents; Humans; Radiography; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Rhinitis; Sinusitis; Time Factors
PubMed: 30198548
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD006089.pub5 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Apr 2015Acute upper respiratory tract infections (URTIs), including the common cold and rhinosinusitis, are common afflictions that cause discomfort and debilitation and... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Acute upper respiratory tract infections (URTIs), including the common cold and rhinosinusitis, are common afflictions that cause discomfort and debilitation and contribute significantly to workplace absenteeism. Treatment is generally by antipyretic and decongestant drugs and sometimes antibiotics, even though most infections are viral. Nasal irrigation with saline is often employed as an adjunct treatment for URTI symptoms despite a relative lack of evidence for benefit in this clinical setting. This review is an update of the Cochrane review by Kassel et al, which found that saline was probably effective in reducing the severity of some symptoms associated with acute URTIs.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the effects of saline nasal irrigation for treating the symptoms of acute URTIs.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched CENTRAL (2014, Issue 7), MEDLINE (1966 to July week 5, 2014), EMBASE (1974 to August 2014), CINAHL (1982 to August 2014), AMED (1985 to August 2014) and LILACS (1982 to August 2014).
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing topical nasal saline treatment to other interventions in adults and children with clinically diagnosed acute URTIs.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors (DK, BM) independently assessed trial quality with the Cochrane 'Risk of bias' tool and extracted data. We analysed all data using the Cochrane Review Manager software. Due to the large variability of outcome measures only a small number of outcomes could be pooled for statistical analysis.
MAIN RESULTS
We identified five RCTs that randomised 544 children (three studies) and 205 adults (exclusively from two studies). They all compared saline irrigation to routine care or other nose sprays, rather than placebo. We included two new trials in this update, which did not contribute data of sufficient size or quality to materially change the original findings. Most trials were small and we judged them to be of low quality, contributing to an unclear risk of bias. Most outcome measures differed greatly between included studies and therefore could not be pooled. Most results showed no difference between nasal saline treatment and control. However, one larger trial, conducted with children, did show a significant reduction in nasal secretion score (mean difference (MD) -0.31, 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.48 to -0.14) and nasal breathing (obstruction) score (MD -0.33, 95% CI -0.47 to -0.19) in the saline group. However, a MD of -0.33 on a four-point symptom scale may have minimal clinical significance. The trial also showed a significant reduction in the use of decongestant medication by the saline group. Minor nasal discomfort and/or irritation was the only side effect reported by a minority of participants.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Nasal saline irrigation possibly has benefits for relieving the symptoms of acute URTIs. However, the included trials were generally too small and had a high risk of bias, reducing confidence in the evidence supporting this. Future trials should involve larger numbers of participants and report standardised and clinically meaningful outcome measures.
Topics: Acute Disease; Adult; Child; Common Cold; Humans; Laryngitis; Nasal Lavage; Pharyngitis; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Respiratory Tract Infections; Rhinitis; Sinusitis; Sodium Chloride
PubMed: 25892369
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD006821.pub3 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Dec 2021Sore throat is a common reason for people to present for medical care and to be prescribed antibiotics. Overuse of antibiotics in primary medicine is a concern, hence... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Sore throat is a common reason for people to present for medical care and to be prescribed antibiotics. Overuse of antibiotics in primary medicine is a concern, hence it is important to establish their efficacy in treating sore throat and preventing secondary complications. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of antibiotics for reducing symptoms of sore throat for child and adult patients.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched CENTRAL 2021, Issue 2, MEDLINE (January 1966 to April week 1, 2021), Embase (January 1990 to April 2021), and two trial registries (searched 6 April 2021).
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) or quasi-RCTs of antibiotics versus control assessing typical sore throat symptoms or complications amongst children and adults seeking medical care for sore throat symptoms.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
We used standard methodological procedures as recommended by Cochrane. Two review authors independently screened studies for inclusion and extracted data, resolving any differences in opinion by discussion. We contacted the trial authors from three studies for additional information. We used GRADE to assess the certainty of the evidence for the efficacy of antibiotics on our primary outcomes (sore throat at day three and one week) and secondary outcomes (fever and headache symptoms and incidence of acute rheumatic fever, acute glomerulonephritis, acute otitis media, acute sinusitis, and quinsy).
MAIN RESULTS
We included 29 trials with 15,337 cases of sore throat. The majority of included studies were conducted in the 1950s, during which time the rates of serious complications (especially acute rheumatic fever) were much higher than today. Although clinical antibiotic trials for sore throat and respiratory symptoms are still being conducted, it is unusual for them to include placebo or 'no treatment' control arms, which is a requirement for inclusion in the review. The age of participants ranged from younger than one year to older than 50 years, but most participants across all studies were adults. Although all studies recruited patients presenting with symptoms of sore throat, few of them distinguished between bacterial and viral aetiology. Bias may have been introduced through non-clarity in treatment allocation procedures and lack of blinding in some studies. Harms from antibiotics were poorly or inconsistently reported, and were thus not quantified for this review. 1. Symptoms Throat soreness and headache at day three were reduced by using antibiotics, although 82% of participants in the placebo or no treatment group were symptom-free by one week. The reduction in sore throat symptoms at day three (risk ratio (RR) 0.70, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.60 to 0.80; 16 studies, 3730 participants; moderate-certainty evidence) was greater than at one week in absolute numbers (RR 0.50, 95% CI 0.34 to 0.75; 14 studies, 3083 participants; moderate-certainty evidence) due to many cases in both treatment groups having resolved by this time. The number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome (NNTB) to prevent one sore throat at day three was less than six; at week one it was 18. Compared with placebo or no treatment, antibiotics did not significantly reduce fever at day three (RR 0.75, 95% CI 0.53 to 1.07; 8 studies, 1443 participants; high-certainty evidence), but did reduce headache at day three (RR 0.49, 95% CI 0.34 to 0.70; 4 studies, 1020 participants; high-certainty evidence). 2. Suppurative complications Whilst the prevalence of suppurative complications was low, antibiotics reduced the incidence of acute otitis media within 14 days (Peto odds ratio (OR) 0.21, 95% CI 0.11 to 0.40; 10 studies, 3646 participants; high-certainty evidence) and quinsy within two months (Peto OR 0.16, 95% CI 0.07 to 0.35; 8 studies, 2433 participants; high-certainty evidence) compared to those receiving placebo or no treatment, but not acute sinusitis within 14 days (Peto OR 0.46, 95% CI 0.10 to 2.05; 8 studies, 2387 participants; high-certainty evidence). 3. Non-suppurative complications There were too few cases of acute glomerulonephritis to determine whether there was a protective effect of antibiotics compared with placebo against this complication (Peto OR 0.07, 95% CI 0.00 to 1.32; 10 studies, 5147 participants; low-certainty evidence). Antibiotics reduced acute rheumatic fever within two months when compared to the control group (Peto OR 0.36, 95% CI 0.26 to 0.50; 18 studies, 12,249 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). It should be noted that the overall prevalence of acute rheumatic fever was very low, particularly in the later studies.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Antibiotics probably reduce the number of people experiencing sore throat, and reduce the likelihood of headache, and some sore throat complications. As the effect on symptoms can be small, clinicians must judge on an individual basis whether it is clinically justifiable to use antibiotics to produce this effect, and whether the underlying cause of the sore throat is likely to be of bacterial origin. Furthermore, the balance between modest symptom reduction and the potential hazards of antimicrobial resistance must be recognised. Few trials have attempted to measure symptom severity. If antibiotics reduce the severity as well as the duration of symptoms, their benefit will have been underestimated in this meta-analysis. Additionally, more trials are needed in low-income countries, in socio-economically deprived sections of high-income countries, as well as in children.
Topics: Adult; Anti-Bacterial Agents; Child; Fever; Humans; Infant; Otitis Media; Pain; Pharyngitis
PubMed: 34881426
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD000023.pub5 -
BMJ Clinical Evidence Dec 2011Acute sinusitis is defined pathologically, by transient inflammation of the mucosal lining of the paranasal sinuses lasting less than 4 weeks. Clinically, it is... (Review)
Review
INTRODUCTION
Acute sinusitis is defined pathologically, by transient inflammation of the mucosal lining of the paranasal sinuses lasting less than 4 weeks. Clinically, it is characterised by nasal congestion, rhinorrhoea, facial pain, hyposmia, sneezing, and, if more severe, additional malaise and fever. It affects 1% to 5% of the adult population each year in Europe.
METHODS AND OUTCOMES
We conducted a systematic review and aimed to answer the following clinical questions: What are the effects of treatments in people with clinically diagnosed acute sinusitis, and in people with radiologically or bacteriologically confirmed acute sinusitis? We searched: Medline, Embase, The Cochrane Library, and other important databases up to June 2011 (Clinical Evidence reviews are updated periodically; please check our website for the most up-to-date version of this review). We included harms alerts from relevant organisations such as the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the UK Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA).
RESULTS
We found 19 systematic reviews, RCTs, or observational studies that met our inclusion criteria. We performed a GRADE evaluation of the quality of evidence for interventions.
CONCLUSIONS
In this systematic review we present information relating to the effectiveness and safety of the following interventions: antibiotics (amoxicillin, amoxicillin-clavulanic acid [co-amoxiclav], doxycycline, cephalosporins, macrolides; different doses, long-course regimens), antihistamines, decongestants (xylometazoline, phenylephrine, pseudoephedrine), saline nasal washes, steam inhalation, and topical corticosteroids (intranasal).
Topics: Acute Disease; Administration, Oral; Amoxicillin; Amoxicillin-Potassium Clavulanate Combination; Double-Blind Method; Evidence-Based Medicine; Humans; Macrolides; Sinusitis
PubMed: 22189346
DOI: No ID Found -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Apr 2020Lumbosacral radicular pain (commonly called sciatica) is a syndrome involving patients who report radiating leg pain. Epidural corticosteroid injections deliver a... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Lumbosacral radicular pain (commonly called sciatica) is a syndrome involving patients who report radiating leg pain. Epidural corticosteroid injections deliver a corticosteroid dose into the epidural space, with the aim of reducing the local inflammatory process and, consequently, relieving the symptoms of lumbosacral radicular pain. This Cochrane Review is an update of a review published in Annals of Internal Medicine in 2012. Some placebo-controlled trials have been published recently, which highlights the importance of updating the previous review.
OBJECTIVES
To investigate the efficacy and safety of epidural corticosteroid injections compared with placebo injection on pain and disability in patients with lumbosacral radicular pain.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the following databases without language limitations up to 25 September 2019: Cochrane Back and Neck group trial register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, PsycINFO, International Pharmaceutical Abstracts, and two trial registers. We also performed citation tracking of included studies and relevant systematic reviews in the field.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included studies that compared epidural corticosteroid injections of any corticosteroid drug to placebo injections in patients with lumbosacral radicular pain. We accepted all three anatomical approaches (caudal, interlaminar, and transforaminal) to delivering corticosteroids into the epidural space. We considered trials that included a placebo treatment as delivery of an inert substance (i.e. one with no pharmacologic activity), an innocuous substance (e.g. normal saline solution), or a pharmacologically active substance but not one considered to provide sustained benefit (e.g. local anaesthetic), either into the epidural space (i.e. to mimic epidural corticosteroid injection) or adjacent spinal tissue (i.e. subcutaneous, intramuscular, or interspinous tissue). We also included trials in which a local anaesthetic with a short duration of action was used as a placebo and injected together with corticosteroid in the intervention group.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two authors independently performed the screening, data extraction, and 'Risk of bias' assessments. In case of insufficient information, we contacted the authors of the original studies or estimated the data. We grouped the outcome data into four time points of assessment: immediate (≤ 2 weeks), short term (> 2 weeks but ≤ 3 months), intermediate term (> 3 months but < 12 months), and long term (≥ 12 months). We assessed the overall quality of evidence for each outcome and time point using the GRADE approach.
MAIN RESULTS
We included 25 clinical trials (from 29 publications) investigating the effects of epidural corticosteroid injections compared to placebo in patients with lumbosacral radicular pain. The included studies provided data for a total of 2470 participants with a mean age ranging from 37.3 to 52.8 years. Seventeen studies included participants with lumbosacral radicular pain with a diagnosis based on clinical assessment and 15 studies included participants with mixed duration of symptoms. The included studies were conducted mainly in North America and Europe. Fifteen studies did not report funding sources, five studies reported not receiving funding, and five reported receiving funding from a non-profit or government source. Eight trials reported data on pain intensity, 12 reported data on disability, and eight studies reported data on adverse events. The duration of the follow-up assessments ranged from 12 hours to 1 year. We considered eight trials to be of high quality because we judged them as having low risk of bias in four out of the five bias domains. We identified one ongoing trial in a trial registry. Epidural corticosteroid injections were probably slightly more effective compared to placebo in reducing leg pain at short-term follow-up (mean difference (MD) -4.93, 95% confidence interval (CI) -8.77 to -1.09 on a 0 to 100 scale; 8 trials, n = 949; moderate-quality evidence (downgraded for risk of bias)). For disability, epidural corticosteroid injections were probably slightly more effective compared to placebo in reducing disability at short-term follow-up (MD -4.18, 95% CI -6.04 to -2.17, on a 0 to 100 scale; 12 trials, n = 1367; moderate-quality evidence (downgraded for risk of bias)). The treatment effects are small, however, and may not be considered clinically important by patients and clinicians (i.e. MD lower than 10%). Most trials provided insufficient information on how or when adverse events were assessed (immediate or short-term follow-up) and only reported adverse drug reactions - that is, adverse events that the trialists attributed to the study treatment. We are very uncertain that epidural corticosteroid injections make no difference compared to placebo injection in the frequency of minor adverse events (risk ratio (RR) 1.14, 95% CI 0.91 to 1.42; 8 trials, n = 877; very low quality evidence (downgraded for risk of bias, inconsistency and imprecision)). Minor adverse events included increased pain during or after the injection, non-specific headache, post-dural puncture headache, irregular periods, accidental dural puncture, thoracic pain, non-local rash, sinusitis, vasovagal response, hypotension, nausea, and tinnitus. One study reported a major drug reaction for one patient on anticoagulant therapy who had a retroperitoneal haematoma as a complication of the corticosteroid injection.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
This study found that epidural corticosteroid injections probably slightly reduced leg pain and disability at short-term follow-up in people with lumbosacral radicular pain. In addition, no minor or major adverse events were reported at short-term follow-up after epidural corticosteroid injections or placebo injection. Although the current review identified additional clinical trials, the available evidence still provides only limited support for the use of epidural corticosteroid injections in people with lumbosacral radicular pain as the treatment effects are small, mainly evident at short-term follow-up and may not be considered clinically important by patients and clinicians (i.e. mean difference lower than 10%). According to GRADE, the quality of the evidence ranged from very low to moderate, suggesting that further studies are likely to play an important role in clarifying the efficacy and tolerability of this treatment. We recommend that further trials should attend to methodological features such as appropriate allocation concealment and blinding of care providers to minimise the potential for biased estimates of treatment and harmful effects.
Topics: Adrenal Cortex Hormones; Adult; Anesthetics, Local; Humans; Injections, Epidural; Lumbosacral Region; Middle Aged; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Sciatica
PubMed: 32271952
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD013577 -
BMJ Clinical Evidence Mar 2008Acute sinusitis is defined pathologically, by transient inflammation of the mucosal lining of the paranasal sinuses lasting less than 4 weeks. Clinically, it is... (Review)
Review
INTRODUCTION
Acute sinusitis is defined pathologically, by transient inflammation of the mucosal lining of the paranasal sinuses lasting less than 4 weeks. Clinically, it is characterised by nasal congestion, rhinorrhoea, facial pain, hyposmia, sneezing, and, if more severe, additional malaise and fever. It affects 1-5% of the adult population each year in Europe.
METHODS AND OUTCOMES
We conducted a systematic review and aimed to answer the following clinical questions: What are the effects of treatments in people with clinically diagnosed acute sinusitis, and with radiologically or bacteriologically confirmed acute sinusitis? We searched: Medline, Embase, The Cochrane Library and other important databases up to August 2007 (Clinical Evidence reviews are updated periodically; please check our website for the most up-to-date version of this review). We included harms alerts from relevant organisations such as the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the UK Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA).
RESULTS
We found 19 systematic reviews, RCTs, or observational studies that met our inclusion criteria. We performed a GRADE evaluation of the quality of evidence for interventions.
CONCLUSIONS
In this systematic review we present information relating to the effectiveness and safety of the following interventions: antibiotics (amoxicillin, co-amoxiclav, doxycycline, cephalosporins, macrolides, different doses [amoxicillin, co-amoxiclav, doxycycline, cephalosporins, macrolides], long-course regimens), antihistamines, cephalosporins or macrolides, decongestants (xylometazoline, phenylephrine, pseudoephedrine), doxycycline, saline nasal washes, steam inhalation, and topical corticosteroids (intra-nasal).
Topics: Acute Disease; Administration, Oral; Amoxicillin; Amoxicillin-Potassium Clavulanate Combination; Double-Blind Method; Evidence-Based Medicine; Humans; Macrolides; Sinusitis
PubMed: 19450327
DOI: No ID Found -
Annals of Family Medicine 2012Acute sinusitis is a common condition in ambulatory care, where it is frequently treated with antibiotics, despite little evidence of their benefit. Intranasal... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
PURPOSE
Acute sinusitis is a common condition in ambulatory care, where it is frequently treated with antibiotics, despite little evidence of their benefit. Intranasal corticosteroids might relieve symptoms; however, evidence for this benefit is currently unclear. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of the effects of intranasal corticosteroids on the symptoms of acute sinusitis.
METHODS
We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, the Cochrane Central register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), and Centre for Reviews and Dissemination databases until February 2011 for studies comparing intranasal corticosteroids with placebo in children or adults having clinical symptoms and signs of acute sinusitis or rhinosinusitis in ambulatory settings. We excluded chronic/allergic sinusitis. Two authors independently extracted data and assessed the studies' methodologic quality.
RESULTS
We included 6 studies having a total of 2,495 patients. In 5 studies, antibiotics were prescribed in addition to corticosteroids or placebo. Intranasal corticosteroids resulted in a significant, small increase in resolution of or improvement in symptoms at days 14 to 21 (risk difference [RD] = 0.08; 95% CI, 0.03-0.13). Analysis of individual symptom scores revealed most consistently significant benefits for facial pain and congestion. Subgroup analysis by time of reported outcomes showed a significant beneficial effect at 21 days (RD = 0.11; 95% CI, 0.06-0.17), but not at 14 to 15 days (RD = 0.05; 95% CI, -0.01 to 0.11). Meta-regression analysis of trials using different doses of mometasone furoate showed a significant dose-response relationship (P=.02).
CONCLUSIONS
Intranasal corticosteroids offer a small therapeutic benefit in acute sinusitis, which may be greater with high doses and with courses of 21 days' duration. Further trials are needed in antibiotic-naïve patients.
Topics: Acute Disease; Administration, Intranasal; Adrenal Cortex Hormones; Adult; Anti-Bacterial Agents; Child; Dose-Response Relationship, Drug; Humans; Regression Analysis; Sinusitis
PubMed: 22585889
DOI: 10.1370/afm.1338 -
Cureus Jun 2023Rhinosinusitis is one of the most common inflammatory diseases. It has been recognized that intracranial vessels are involved and there might be an association with... (Review)
Review
Rhinosinusitis is one of the most common inflammatory diseases. It has been recognized that intracranial vessels are involved and there might be an association with stroke occurrence. The aim of this study was to evaluate the association between rhinosinusitis and cardiovascular diseases, especially stroke, through a literature review. The review was conducted according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) guidelines. We performed on PubMed a literature search from February 2000 to February 2022, using the search terms 'rhinosinusitis' OR 'chronic rhinosinusitis' AND 'stroke' OR 'ischemic stroke'. Fourteen studies were eligible and included in the analysis. Overall, the studies encompassed a total of 1,006,338 patients included in this review. All studies concluded that there is a statistically significant correlation between clinical or radiological sinus inflammation and the risk of stroke, which is independent of traditional stroke risk factors. In conclusion, rhinosinusitis is associated with an increased incidence of stroke.
PubMed: 37496556
DOI: 10.7759/cureus.40923 -
Journal of Clinical Medicine Oct 2022Background: To assess the diagnostic utility of middle meatal culture (MMC) in patients with acute and chronic sinusitis; Methods: Six databases were thoroughly reviewed... (Review)
Review
Background: To assess the diagnostic utility of middle meatal culture (MMC) in patients with acute and chronic sinusitis; Methods: Six databases were thoroughly reviewed up to March 2022. Sensitivity, specificity, and negative and positive predictive values were extracted. Methodological quality was evaluated using the QUADAS-2 instrument; Results: Fifteen reports were analyzed. MMC results exhibited a significant correlation (r = 0.7590, 95% confidence interval [CI] [0.6855; 0.8172], p < 0.0001) with those of maxillary sinus puncture. The diagnostic odds ratio (DOR) of MMC (reference = maxillary sinus culture) was 8.5475 [3.9238; 18.6199]. The area under the summary receiver operating characteristic curve was 0.761. The sensitivity and specificity of MMC were 0.7759 [0.6744; 0.8526] and 0.7514 [0.6110; 0.8534], respectively. We performed subgroup analysis based on age (children vs. adults), duration of disease (acute vs. chronic), and specimen collection method (biopsy, swabs, suction tips). The DORs, specificities, and negative and positive predictive values varied significantly. Diagnostic accuracy was highest for children and individuals with chronic disease, and when samples were collected via suction.; Conclusions: MMC provided fair diagnostic accuracy in patients with acute or chronic sinusitis. Although some institutional differences were evident, the middle meatal and maxillary sinus culture results were similar.
PubMed: 36294389
DOI: 10.3390/jcm11206069 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Oct 2014The efficacy of decongestants, antihistamines and nasal irrigation in children with clinically diagnosed acute sinusitis has not been systematically evaluated. (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
The efficacy of decongestants, antihistamines and nasal irrigation in children with clinically diagnosed acute sinusitis has not been systematically evaluated.
OBJECTIVES
To determine the efficacy of decongestants, antihistamines or nasal irrigation in improving symptoms of acute sinusitis in children.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched CENTRAL (2014, Issue 5), MEDLINE (1950 to June week 1, 2014) and EMBASE (1950 to June 2014).
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-RCTs, which evaluated children younger than 18 years of age with acute sinusitis, defined as 10 to 30 days of rhinorrhea, congestion or daytime cough. We excluded trials of children with chronic sinusitis and allergic rhinitis.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently assessed each study for inclusion.
MAIN RESULTS
Of the 662 studies identified through the electronic searches and handsearching, none met all the inclusion criteria.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
There is no evidence to determine whether the use of antihistamines, decongestants or nasal irrigation is efficacious in children with acute sinusitis. Further research is needed to determine whether these interventions are beneficial in the treatment of children with acute sinusitis.
Topics: Acute Disease; Adolescent; Child; Combined Modality Therapy; Histamine Antagonists; Humans; Nasal Decongestants; Nasal Lavage; Sinusitis
PubMed: 25347280
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD007909.pub4