↓ Skip to main content

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

Surgery for nasal polyposis in cystic fibrosis

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, December 2023
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (64th percentile)

Mentioned by

3 X users

Readers on

18 Mendeley
Surgery for nasal polyposis in cystic fibrosis
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, December 2023
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd014084.pub2
Pubmed ID

Paula Ribeiro Lopes Almeida, Osmar C Person, Maria Es Puga, Álvaro N Atallah, Virginia Fm Trevisani


Cystic fibrosis (CF) is a life-shortening, autosomal recessive disease that leads to abnormal electrolyte concentration in exocrine secretions. Secretion stasis in paranasal sinuses determines chronic rhinosinusitis (CRS) and nasal polyposis. Endoscopic sinus surgery is used to open the sinuses and allow medical treatment to work properly. To determine the effects of sinus surgery alone or in combination with medical treatment (non-surgical) compared to medical treatment (non-surgical) alone on both nasal and pulmonary function in people with CF diagnosed with CRS with nasal polyposis. Further, to evaluate the impact of sinus surgery (with or without medical treatment) on hospitalization rates, use of antibiotics and pulmonary exacerbation rates. We searched the Cochrane Cystic Fibrosis Trials Register, compiled from electronic database searches and hand searching of journals and conference abstract books. Date of last search: 4 July 2022. We also searched other databases (Pubmed, Embase, World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP), Virtual Health Library and ClinicalTrials.gov). Date of last search: 18 September 2022. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing groups who underwent endoscopic sinus surgery and groups with medical treatment alone. The review authors independently selected studies, extracted data, assessed the risk of bias and evaluated the certainty of the evidence using GRADE. They contacted the authors of the included study for additional information. We identified 66 publications relating to 50 studies from electronic searches. Only one study fulfilled the inclusion criteria, and only limited information was available. In this study, 28 participants aged 19 to 28 years were randomized in equal numbers to either nasal irrigation alone or nasal irrigation with surgery (endoscopic polypectomy with extended sinusotomy). The certainty of the evidence was very low according to the GRADE approach. We are uncertain whether, compared to medical treatment alone, the addition of surgical intervention improves nasal symptoms, or reduces bacterial colonization, the use of antibiotics and pulmonary exacerbations. We are also uncertain whether the addition of surgery to medical treatment leads to changes in pulmonary function. There was one episode of bleeding during surgery that was corrected during the procedure with no further consequences. The study did not report on survival. Very low-certainty evidence means we are not certain if endoscopic sinus surgery to treat chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyposis in cystic fibrosis is effective. Future research should be multicentric to increase the number of participants and increase statistical power. Adequate randomization and allocation concealment are important to guarantee that the groups are similar. Blinding, however, may not be possible in an ethical trial; even without blinding, results can achieve high-level evidence if the outcomes used are objective parameters. Future research should follow participants of all ages for at least 12 months to evaluate the evolution of nasal polyposis, its recurrence and how symptoms may return. We also consider mortality an important outcome to be assessed. Future clinical research should consider the effects of cystic fibrosis transmembrane conductance regulators, a new group of drugs that may affect the development of nasal polyps.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 18 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 18 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 4 22%
Unspecified 4 22%
Professor 1 6%
Unknown 9 50%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Unspecified 5 28%
Environmental Science 2 11%
Nursing and Health Professions 1 6%
Medicine and Dentistry 1 6%
Unknown 9 50%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. 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 15 February 2024.
All research outputs
of 25,593,129 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
of 13,156 outputs
Outputs of similar age
of 355,570 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
of 84 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,593,129 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 43rd percentile – i.e., 43% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 13,156 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 35.8. This one is in the 19th percentile – i.e., 19% 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 355,570 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 64% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 84 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 15th percentile – i.e., 15% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.