-
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Sep 2022Loss of olfactory function is well recognised as a symptom of COVID-19 infection, and the pandemic has resulted in a large number of individuals with abnormalities in... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Loss of olfactory function is well recognised as a symptom of COVID-19 infection, and the pandemic has resulted in a large number of individuals with abnormalities in their sense of smell. For many, the condition is temporary and resolves within two to four weeks. However, in a significant minority the symptoms persist. At present, it is not known whether early intervention with any form of treatment (such as medication or olfactory training) can promote recovery and prevent persisting olfactory disturbance. This is an update of the 2021 review with four studies added.
OBJECTIVES
1) To evaluate the benefits and harms of any intervention versus no treatment for people with acute olfactory dysfunction due to COVID-19 infection. 2) To keep the evidence up-to-date, using a living systematic review approach. SEARCH METHODS: The Cochrane ENT Information Specialist searched the Cochrane ENT Register; Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL); Ovid MEDLINE; Ovid Embase; Web of Science; ClinicalTrials.gov; ICTRP and additional sources for published and unpublished trials. The date of the latest search was 20 October 2021.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) in people with COVID-19 related olfactory disturbance, which had been present for less than four weeks. We included any intervention compared to no treatment or placebo. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard Cochrane methods. Our primary outcomes were the presence of normal olfactory function, serious adverse effects and change in sense of smell. Secondary outcomes were the prevalence of parosmia, change in sense of taste, disease-related quality of life and other adverse effects (including nosebleeds/bloody discharge). We used GRADE to assess the certainty of the evidence for each outcome. MAIN RESULTS: We included five studies with 691 participants. The studies evaluated the following interventions: intranasal corticosteroid sprays, intranasal corticosteroid drops, intranasal hypertonic saline and zinc sulphate. Intranasal corticosteroid spray compared to no intervention/placebo We included three studies with 288 participants who had olfactory dysfunction for less than four weeks following COVID-19. Presence of normal olfactory function The evidence is very uncertain about the effect of intranasal corticosteroid spray on both self-rated recovery of olfactory function and recovery of olfactory function using psychophysical tests at up to four weeks follow-up (self-rated: risk ratio (RR) 1.19, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.85 to 1.68; 1 study; 100 participants; psychophysical testing: RR 2.3, 95% CI 1.16 to 4.63; 1 study; 77 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Change in sense of smell The evidence is also very uncertain about the effect of intranasal corticosteroid spray on self-rated change in the sense of smell (at less than 4 weeks: mean difference (MD) 0.5 points lower, 95% CI 1.38 lower to 0.38 higher; 1 study; 77 participants; at > 4 weeks to 3 months: MD 2.4 points higher, 95% CI 1.32 higher to 3.48 higher; 1 study; 100 participants; very low-certainty evidence, rated on a scale of 1 to 10, higher scores mean better olfactory function). Intranasal corticosteroids may make little or no difference to the change in sense of smell when assessed with psychophysical testing (MD 0.2 points, 95% CI 2.06 points lower to 2.06 points higher; 1 study; 77 participants; low-certainty evidence, 0- to 24-point scale, higher scores mean better olfactory function). Serious adverse effects The authors of one study reported no adverse effects, but their intention to collect these data was not pre-specified so we are uncertain if these were systematically sought and identified. The remaining two studies did not report on adverse effects. Intranasal corticosteroid drops compared to no intervention/placebo We included one study with 248 participants who had olfactory dysfunction for ≤ 15 days following COVID-19. Presence of normal olfactory function Intranasal corticosteroid drops may make little or no difference to self-rated recovery at > 4 weeks to 3 months (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.89 to 1.11; 1 study; 248 participants; low-certainty evidence). No other outcomes were assessed by this study. Data on the use of hypertonic saline nasal irrigation and the use of zinc sulphate to prevent persistent olfactory dysfunction are included in the full text of the review.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
There is very limited evidence available on the efficacy and harms of treatments for preventing persistent olfactory dysfunction following COVID-19 infection. However, we have identified a number of ongoing trials in this area. As this is a living systematic review we will update the data regularly, as new results become available.
Topics: Adrenal Cortex Hormones; COVID-19; Chronic Disease; Humans; Olfaction Disorders; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Rhinitis; Smell; Zinc Sulfate
PubMed: 36063364
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD013877.pub3 -
Langenbeck's Archives of Surgery Sep 2023Prevention and management of postoperative pancreatic fistula (POPF) after pancreatic resections is still an unresolved issue. Continuous irrigation of the...
PURPOSE
Prevention and management of postoperative pancreatic fistula (POPF) after pancreatic resections is still an unresolved issue. Continuous irrigation of the peripancreatic area is frequently used to treat necrotizing pancreatitis, but its use after elective pancreatic surgery is not well-known. With this systematic review, we sought to evaluate the current knowledge and expertise regarding the use of continuous irrigation in the surgical area to prevent or treat POPF after elective pancreatic resections.
METHODS
A systematic search of the literature was conducted according to the PRISMA 2020 guidelines, screening the databases of Pubmed, Scopus, Web of Science, and Ovid MEDLINE. Because of the heterogeneity of the included articles, a statistical inference could not be performed and the literature was reviewed only descriptively. The study was pre-registered online (OSF Registry).
RESULTS
Nine studies were included. Three studies provided data regarding the prophylactic use of continuous irrigation after distal and limited pancreatectomies. Here, patients after irrigation showed a lower rate of clinically relevant POPF, related complications, lengths of stay, and mortality. Six other papers reported the use of local lavage to treat clinically relevant POPF and subsequent fluid collections, with successful outcomes.
CONCLUSION
In the current literature, only a few publications are focused on the use of continuous irrigation after pancreatic resection to prevent or manage POPF. The included studies showed promising results, and this technique may be useful in patients at high risk of POPF. Further investigations and randomized trials are needed.
Topics: Humans; Pancreatectomy; Elective Surgical Procedures; Therapeutic Irrigation; Pancreas; Postoperative Complications
PubMed: 37659027
DOI: 10.1007/s00423-023-03070-5 -
Archives of Orthopaedic and Trauma... Jul 2023Complications associated with the application of the Reamer-irrigator-Aspirator (RIA) system are described in the literature. However, to date a systematic review and... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
INTRODUCTION
Complications associated with the application of the Reamer-irrigator-Aspirator (RIA) system are described in the literature. However, to date a systematic review and meta-analysis to assess prevalence of complications associated with the use of the RIA system have not been conducted.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
The review is registered with PROSPERO (CRD42021269982). MEDLINE, the Web of Science Core Collection, and Embase were searched from the inception to 10 August 2021. The primary objective was to assess complications and blood loss associated with the use of the RIA system.
RESULTS
Forty-seven studies involving 1834 procedures performed with the RIA system were finally included. A total of 105 complications were reported, with a pooled estimated overall prevalence of 1.7% with a 95% confidence interval (CI) of 0.40 to 3.60, with cortex perforation being the largest reported complication with a total of 34 incidences. A significant subgroup difference was observed (p = 0.02). In subgroup 1 (bone graft harvesting), complication prevalence was 1.4% (95% CI 0.2-3.4); in subgroup 2 (clearance intramedullary canal) it was 0.7% (95% CI 0.00-6.30) and in subgroup 3 (reaming with RIA system prior to nail fixation) 11.9% (95% CI 1.80-26.40). No statistically significant difference for tibia and femur as RIA system application site was observed (CI 0.69-4.19). In studies reporting blood loss, a mean volume of 803.29 ml, a mean drop of hemoglobin of 3.74 g/dl and a necessity of blood transfusion in 9.72% of the patients were observed.
CONCLUSIONS
The systematic review and meta-analysis demonstrate a low overall prevalence rate of complications associated with the RIA system. However, especially the risk of cortical perforation and the frequently reported relevant intraoperative blood loss are complications that should be anticipated in perioperative management and ultimately considered when using the RIA system.
Topics: Humans; Therapeutic Irrigation; Tissue and Organ Harvesting; Femur; Tibia; Blood Loss, Surgical; Bone Transplantation
PubMed: 36114869
DOI: 10.1007/s00402-022-04621-z -
World Journal of Emergency Surgery :... Mar 2023Intraoperative peritoneal lavage (IOPL) with saline has been widely used in surgical practice. However, the effectiveness of IOPL with saline in patients with... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Intraoperative peritoneal lavage (IOPL) with saline has been widely used in surgical practice. However, the effectiveness of IOPL with saline in patients with intra-abdominal infections (IAIs) remains controversial. This study aims to systematically review randomized controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating the effectiveness of IOPL in patients with IAIs.
METHODS
The databases of PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, Cochrane library, CNKI, WanFang, and CBM databases were searched from inception to December 31, 2022. Random-effects models were used to calculate the risk ratio (RR), mean difference, and standardized mean difference. The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) was used to rate the quality of the evidence.
RESULTS
Ten RCTs with 1318 participants were included, of which eight studies on appendicitis and two studies on peritonitis. Moderate-quality evidence showed that the use of IOPL with saline was not associated with a reduced risk of mortality (0% vs. 1.1%; RR, 0.31 [95% CI, 0.02-6.39]), intra-abdominal abscess (12.3% vs. 11.8%; RR, 1.02 [95% CI, 0.70-1.48]; I = 24%), incisional surgical site infections (3.3% vs. 3.8%; RR, 0.72 [95% CI, 0.18-2.86]; I = 50%), postoperative complication (11.0% vs. 13.2%; RR, 0.74 [95% CI, 0.39-1.41]; I = 64%), reoperation (2.9% vs. 1.7%; RR,1.71 [95% CI, 0.74-3.93]; I = 0%) and readmission (5.2% vs. 6.6%; RR, 0.95 [95% CI, 0.48-1.87]; I = 7%) in patients with appendicitis when compared to non-IOPL. Low-quality evidence showed that the use of IOPL with saline was not associated with a reduced risk of mortality (22.7% vs. 23.3%; RR, 0.97 [95% CI, 0.45-2.09], I = 0%) and intra-abdominal abscess (5.1% vs. 5.0%; RR, 1.05 [95% CI, 0.16-6.98], I = 0%) in patients with peritonitis when compared to non-IOPL.
CONCLUSION
IOPL with saline use in patients with appendicitis was not associated with significantly decreased risk of mortality, intra-abdominal abscess, incisional surgical site infection, postoperative complication, reoperation, and readmission compared with non-IOPL. These findings do not support the routine use of IOPL with saline in patients with appendicitis. The benefits of IOPL for IAI caused by other types of abdominal infections need to be investigated.
Topics: Humans; Peritoneal Lavage; Abdominal Abscess; Peritonitis; Surgical Wound Infection; Appendicitis; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 36991507
DOI: 10.1186/s13017-023-00496-6 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... May 2010Osteoarthritis is the most common form of joint disorder and a leading cause of pain and physical disability. Observational studies suggested a benefit for joint lavage,... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Osteoarthritis is the most common form of joint disorder and a leading cause of pain and physical disability. Observational studies suggested a benefit for joint lavage, but recent, sham-controlled trials yielded conflicting results, suggesting joint lavage not to be effective.
OBJECTIVES
To compare joint lavage with sham intervention, placebo or non-intervention control in terms of effects on pain, function and safety outcomes in patients with knee osteoarthritis.
SEARCH STRATEGY
We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, EMBASE, and CINAHL up to 3 August 2009, checked conference proceedings, reference lists, and contacted authors.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included studies if they were randomised or quasi-randomised trials that compared arthroscopic and non-arthroscopic joint lavage with a control intervention in patients with osteoarthritis of the knee. We did not apply any language restrictions.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two independent review authors extracted data using standardised forms. We contacted investigators to obtain missing outcome information. We calculated standardised mean differences (SMDs) for pain and function, and risk ratios for safety outcomes. We combined trials using inverse-variance random-effects meta-analysis.
MAIN RESULTS
We included seven trials with 567 patients. Three trials examined arthroscopic joint lavage, two non-arthroscopic joint lavage and two tidal irrigation. The methodological quality and the quality of reporting was poor and we identified a moderate to large degree of heterogeneity among the trials (I(2) = 65%). We found little evidence for a benefit of joint lavage in terms of pain relief at three months (SMD -0.11, 95% CI -0.42 to 0.21), corresponding to a difference in pain scores between joint lavage and control of 0.3 cm on a 10-cm visual analogue scale (VAS). Results for improvement in function at three months were similar (SMD -0.10, 95% CI -0.30 to 0.11), corresponding to a difference in function scores between joint lavage and control of 0.2 cm on a WOMAC disability sub-scale from 0 to 10. For pain, estimates of effect sizes varied to some degree depending on the type of lavage, but this variation was likely to be explained by differences in the credibility of control interventions: trials using sham interventions to closely mimic the process of joint lavage showed a null-effect. Reporting on adverse events and drop out rates was unsatisfactory, and we were unable to draw conclusions for these secondary outcomes.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Joint lavage does not result in a relevant benefit for patients with knee osteoarthritis in terms of pain relief or improvement of function.
Topics: Arthroscopy; Humans; Osteoarthritis, Knee; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Therapeutic Irrigation
PubMed: 20464751
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD007320.pub2 -
International Journal of Medical... 2016The middle meningeal artery (MMA) is a very important artery in neurosurgery. Many diseases, including dural arteriovenous fistula (DAVF), pseudoaneurysm, true aneurysm,... (Review)
Review
The middle meningeal artery (MMA) is a very important artery in neurosurgery. Many diseases, including dural arteriovenous fistula (DAVF), pseudoaneurysm, true aneurysm, traumatic arteriovenous fistula (AVF), moyamoya disease (MMD), recurrent chronic subdural hematoma (CSDH), migraine and meningioma, can involve the MMA. In these diseases, the lesions occur in either the MMA itself and treatment is necessary, or the MMA is used as the pathway to treat the lesions; therefore, the MMA is very important to the development and treatment of a variety of neurosurgical diseases. However, no systematic review describing the importance of MMA has been published. In this study, we used the PUBMED database to perform a review of the literature on the MMA to increase our understanding of its role in neurosurgery. After performing this review, we found that the MMA was commonly used to access DAVFs and meningiomas. Pseudoaneurysms and true aneurysms in the MMA can be effectively treated via endovascular or surgical removal. In MMD, the MMA plays a very important role in the development of collateral circulation and indirect revascularization. For recurrent CDSHs, after burr hole irrigation and drainage have failed, MMA embolization may be attempted. The MMA can also contribute to the occurrence and treatment of migraines. Because the ophthalmic artery can ectopically originate from the MMA, caution must be taken to avoid causing damage to the MMA during operations.
Topics: Aneurysm; Central Nervous System Vascular Malformations; Collateral Circulation; Embolization, Therapeutic; Hematoma, Subdural, Chronic; Humans; Meningeal Arteries; Meningioma; Migraine Disorders; Moyamoya Disease; Neurosurgical Procedures
PubMed: 27766029
DOI: 10.7150/ijms.16489 -
International Orthopaedics Jul 2011The 'reamer-irrigator-aspirator' (RIA) is an innovation developed to reduce fat embolism (FE) and thermal necrosis (TN) that can occur during reaming/nailing of... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
The 'reamer-irrigator-aspirator' (RIA) is an innovation developed to reduce fat embolism (FE) and thermal necrosis (TN) that can occur during reaming/nailing of long-bone fractures. Since its inception its indications have expanded to include the treatment of long-bone osteomyelitis and as a harvester of bone graft/mesenchymal stem cells (MSCs).
METHODS
This study involved a systematic review, via Pubmed® and Google Scholar®, of English language sources (nine non-clinical studies, seven clinical studies and seven case reports) using the keywords: 'reamer', 'irrigator', 'aspirator' (1st May 2010). Sources were reviewed with reference to the RIAs efficacy in (1) preventing FE/TN, (2) treating long-bone osteomyelitis, (3) harvesting bone graft/MSCs, and (4) operating safely. Experimental data supports the use of the RIA in preventing FE and TN, however, there is a paucity of clinical data.
CONCLUSIONS
The RIA is a reliable method in achieving high volumes of bone graft/MSCs, and high union rates are reported when using RIA bone-fragments to treat non-unions. Evidence suggests possible effectiveness in treating long-bone osteomyelitis. The RIA appears relatively safe, with a low rate of morbidity provided a meticulous technique is used. When complications occur they respond well to conventional techniques. The RIA demands further investigation especially with respect to the optimal application of MSCs for bone repair strategies.
Topics: Bone Transplantation; Embolism, Fat; Equipment Design; Fracture Fixation, Intramedullary; Fractures, Bone; Humans; Osteomyelitis; Pressure; Suction; Therapeutic Irrigation; Tissue and Organ Harvesting
PubMed: 21243358
DOI: 10.1007/s00264-010-1189-z -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Jul 2017Extravasation injury, a complication commonly seen in the neonatal intensive care unit, can result in scarring with cosmetic and functional sequelae. A wide variety of... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Extravasation injury, a complication commonly seen in the neonatal intensive care unit, can result in scarring with cosmetic and functional sequelae. A wide variety of treatments are available, including subcutaneous irrigation with saline (with or without hyaluronidase), liposuction, use of specific antidotes, topical applications, and normal wound care with dry or wet dressings. All such treatments aim to prevent or reduce the severity of complications.
OBJECTIVES
Primary objective To compare the efficacy and safety of saline irrigation or saline irrigation with prior hyaluronidase infiltration versus no intervention or normal wound care for tissue healing in neonates with extravasation injury. Secondary objectives To evaluate by subgroup analysis of controlled trials the influence of type of extravasate, timing of irrigation following extravasation, and postmenstrual age (PMA) of the neonate at the time of injury on outcomes and adverse effects.Specifically, we planned to perform subgroup analysis for the primary outcome, if appropriate, by examining:1. time to irrigation from identified extravasation injury (< 1 hour or ≥ 1 hour);2. type of extravasate (parenteral nutrition fluid or other fluids or medications);3. amount of saline used (< 500 mL or ≥ 500 mL); and4. PMA at injury (< 37 completed weeks or ≥ 37 completed weeks).
SEARCH METHODS
We used the standard search strategy of the Cochrane Neonatal Review Group to search the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; 2017, Issue 1), MEDLINE via PubMed (1966 to 2 February 2017), Embase (1980 to 2 February 2017), and the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL; 1982 to 2 February 2017). We also searched clinical trial databases, conference proceedings, and reference lists of retrieved articles for randomised controlled trials and quasi-randomised trials. We used the Google Scholar search tool for reverse citations of relevant articles.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-randomised controlled trials comparing saline irrigation with or without hyaluronidase infiltration versus no intervention or normal wound care for the management of extravasation injury in neonates.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Three review authors independently reviewed and identified articles for possible inclusion in this review. We used the GRADE approach to assess the quality of evidence.
MAIN RESULTS
We found no eligible studies. Our search revealed 10 case reports or case series describing successful outcomes with different interventions for this condition.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
To date, no RCTs have examined the effects of saline irrigation with or without prior hyaluronidase infiltration for management of extravasation injury in neonates. Saline irrigation is frequently reported in the literature as an intervention for management of extravasation injury in neonates. Research should focus first on evaluating the efficacy and safety of this intervention through RCTs. It will also be important for investigators to determine effect size by examining the timing of the intervention, the nature of the infusate, and severity of injury at the time of intervention.
Topics: Extravasation of Diagnostic and Therapeutic Materials; Humans; Hyaluronoglucosaminidase; Infant, Newborn; Medical Records; Skin; Sodium Chloride; Solutions; Therapeutic Irrigation
PubMed: 28724193
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD008404.pub3 -
PloS One 2022This systematic review aims to assess the effects and safety of Chinese herbal medicines (CHMs) in the management of rhinosinusitis (RS); inform clinicians of the... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
This systematic review aims to assess the effects and safety of Chinese herbal medicines (CHMs) in the management of rhinosinusitis (RS); inform clinicians of the current state of the evidence; identify the best available evidence; and suggest further directions for research. Five English and four Chinese language databases, and four clinical trial registries were searched. Eligible studies were randomised controlled trials (RCTs). Participants were diagnosed with RS based on established criteria. Test interventions were CHMs administered orally and/or nasally, excluding injections and displacement techniques. Control interventions included placebos, no additional treatment, and conventional non-invasive treatments including pharmacotherapies and/or nasal irrigation, and/or inhalations. Polyposis and post-surgical recovery were excluded. Outcomes were Sino-Nasal Outcome Test (SNOT), visual analogue scales (VAS), Lund-Mackay computed tomography score (LM), Lund-Kennedy Endoscopic score (LK), Mucociliary transport time (MTT), Mucociliary transport rate (MTR), quality of life and adverse events (AEs). Risk of bias used the Cochrane tool. Meta-analysis in Review Manager 5.4.1 used random effects for mean difference (MD) or risk ratio (RR) with 95% confidence intervals. Heterogeneity was assessed as I2. Thirty-four RCTs were included, 30 of chronic RS (CRS) and four of acute RS (ARS). These enrolled 3,752 participants. Five RCTs blinded participants. For CRS, comparisons with placebo showed greater improvements in the CHM groups for SNOT-20 and VAS-TNS (total nasal symptoms). Blinded comparisons with pharmacotherapies showed no differences between groups in the degree of improvement for SNOT-20, VAS-TNS, and LM, suggesting these CHMs had similar effects, at least in the short term. In ARS, pooled results found improved scores on VAS-TNS and LK suggesting a benefit for combining these CHMs with pharmacotherapies. Limitations included inadequacies in study design and methodological reporting, and insufficient reporting of AEs. Heterogeneity in some pooled results precluded strong conclusions. Further well-designed studies are needed to test whether the results are replicable. Systematic review registration number: PROSPERO (CRD42019119586).
Topics: Humans; China; Nasal Lavage; Phytotherapy; Sinusitis
PubMed: 36454862
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0278492 -
PloS One 2021Human microbiotas are communities of microorganisms living in symbiosis with humans. They play an important role in the host immune response to respiratory viral...
BACKGROUND
Human microbiotas are communities of microorganisms living in symbiosis with humans. They play an important role in the host immune response to respiratory viral infection. However, evidence on the human microbiome and coronavirus disease (COVID-19) relationship is insufficient. The aim of this systematic literature review was to evaluate existing evidence on the association between the microbiome and COVID-19 in humans and summarize these data in the pandemic era.
METHODS
We conducted a systematic literature review on the association between the microbiome and COVID-19 in humans by searching PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Library, CINAHL, and Web of Science databases for articles in English published up to October 31, 2020. The results were analyzed qualitatively. This study is registered with PROSPERO (CRD42020195982).
RESULTS
Of the 543 articles identified by searching databases, 16 in line with the research objectives were eligible for qualitative review: eight sampled the microbiome using stool, four using nasopharyngeal or throat swab, three using bronchoalveolar lavage fluid, and one using lung tissue. Fecal microbiome dysbiosis and increased opportunistic pathogens were reported in COVID-19 patients. Several studies suggested the dysbiosis in the lung microbiome of COVID-19 patients with an abundance of opportunistic pathogens using lower respiratory tract samples. The association between COVID-19 severity and the human microbiome remains uncertain.
CONCLUSION
The human fecal and respiratory tract microbiome changed in COVID-19 patients with opportunistic pathogen abundance. Further research to elucidate the effect of alternation of the human microbiome in disease pathogenesis is warranted.
Topics: Bronchoalveolar Lavage Fluid; COVID-19; Dysbiosis; Feces; Gastrointestinal Microbiome; Humans; Microbiota; Nasopharynx
PubMed: 34161373
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0253293