↓ Skip to main content

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

Nasal saline irrigations for the symptoms of 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 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (90th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (70th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
blogs
1 blog

Citations

dimensions_citation
4 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
57 Mendeley
Title
Nasal saline irrigations for the symptoms of chronic rhinosinusitis
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, April 2016
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd006394.pub3
Pubmed ID
Authors

Richard J Harvey, Saiful Alam Hannan, Lydia Badia, Glenis Scadding

Abstract

The use of nasal irrigation for the treatment of nose and sinus complaints has its foundations in yogic and homeopathic traditions. There has been increasing use of saline irrigation, douches, sprays and rinsing as an adjunct to the medical management of chronic rhinosinusitis. Treatment strategies often include the use of topical saline from once to more than four times a day. Considerable patient effort is often involved. Any additional benefit has been difficult to discern from other treatments. To evaluate the effectiveness and safety of topical saline in the management of chronic rhinosinusitis. Our search included the Cochrane Ear, Nose and Throat Disorders Group Trials Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL, The Cochrane Library, Issue 4 2006), MEDLINE (1950 to 2006) and EMBASE (1974 to 2006). The date of the last search was November 2006. Randomised controlled trials in which saline was evaluated in comparison with either no treatment, a placebo, as an adjunct to other treatments or against treatments. The comparison of hypertonic versus isotonic solutions was also compared. Trials were graded for methodological quality using the Cochrane approach (modification of Chalmers 1990). Only symptom scores from saline versus no treatment and symptom and radiological scores from the hypertonic versus isotonic group could be pooled for statistical analysis. A narrative overview of the remaining results is presented. Eight trials were identified that satisfied the inclusion criteria. Three studies compared topical saline against no treatment, one against placebo, one as an adjunct to and one against an intranasal steroid spray. Two studies compared different hypertonic solutions against isotonic saline.There is evidence that saline is beneficial in the treatment of the symptoms of chronic rhinosinusitis when used as the sole modality of treatment. Evidence also exists in favour of saline as a treatment adjunct. No superiority was seen when saline was compared against a reflexology 'placebo'. Saline is not as effective as an intranasal steroid. Some evidence suggests that hypertonic solutions improve objective measures but the impact on symptoms is less clear. Saline irrigations are well tolerated. Although minor side effects are common, the beneficial effect of saline appears to outweigh these drawbacks for the majority of patients. The use of topical saline could be included as a treatment adjunct for the symptoms of chronic rhinosinusitis.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 57 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 2%
Greece 1 2%
Unknown 55 96%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 7 12%
Student > Bachelor 6 11%
Student > Doctoral Student 6 11%
Researcher 4 7%
Student > Postgraduate 4 7%
Other 12 21%
Unknown 18 32%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 20 35%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 3 5%
Nursing and Health Professions 3 5%
Social Sciences 2 4%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 2 4%
Other 8 14%
Unknown 19 33%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 19. 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 23 February 2018.
All research outputs
#731,806
of 12,552,783 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#2,512
of 10,356 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#25,567
of 264,670 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#57
of 191 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,552,783 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 94th percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 10,356 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 20.2. This one has done well, scoring higher than 75% 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 264,670 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 90% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 191 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 70% of its contemporaries.