↓ Skip to main content

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

Saline nasal irrigation for acute upper respiratory tract infections

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, April 2015
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 (99th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (98th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
24 news outlets
blogs
3 blogs
policy
1 policy source
twitter
19 tweeters
facebook
2 Facebook pages
wikipedia
4 Wikipedia pages
video
1 video uploader

Citations

dimensions_citation
78 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
263 Mendeley
citeulike
1 CiteULike
Title
Saline nasal irrigation for acute upper respiratory tract infections
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, April 2015
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd006821.pub3
Pubmed ID
Authors

David King, Ben Mitchell, Christopher P Williams, Geoffrey KP Spurling

Abstract

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. To assess the effects of saline nasal irrigation for treating the symptoms of acute URTIs. 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). Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing topical nasal saline treatment to other interventions in adults and children with clinically diagnosed acute URTIs. 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. 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. 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.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 19 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 263 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 <1%
Brazil 1 <1%
Unknown 261 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 45 17%
Student > Master 43 16%
Other 26 10%
Student > Ph. D. Student 25 10%
Researcher 21 8%
Other 56 21%
Unknown 47 18%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 118 45%
Nursing and Health Professions 31 12%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 10 4%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 9 3%
Immunology and Microbiology 5 2%
Other 33 13%
Unknown 57 22%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 221. 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 13 May 2021.
All research outputs
#94,006
of 17,717,881 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#180
of 11,739 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#1,412
of 236,210 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#4
of 231 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 17,717,881 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 99th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 11,739 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 25.3. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 98% 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 236,210 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 99% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 231 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 98% of its contemporaries.