↓ Skip to main content

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

Topical and systemic antifungal therapy for the symptomatic treatment of chronic rhinosinusitis

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, September 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Readers on

mendeley
61 Mendeley
Title
Topical and systemic antifungal therapy for the symptomatic treatment of chronic rhinosinusitis
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, September 2018
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd008263.pub3
Pubmed ID
Authors

Peta‐Lee Sacks, Richard J Harvey, Janet Rimmer, Richard M Gallagher, Raymond Sacks

Abstract

Chronic rhinosinusitis (CRS) is an inflammatory disorder of the nose and sinuses. Since fungi were postulated as a potential cause of CRS in the late 1990s, there has been increasing controversy about the use of both topical and systemic antifungal agents in its management. Although interaction between the immune system and fungus has been demonstrated in CRS, this does not necessarily imply that fungi are the cause of CRS or that antifungals will be effective its management. To assess the effectiveness of topical or systemic antifungal therapy in the treatment of CRS. We searched the Cochrane Ear, Nose and Throat Disorders Group Trials Register; the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL); PubMed; EMBASE; CINAHL; Web of Science; BIOSIS Previews; Cambridge Scientific Abstracts; ICTRP and additional sources for published and unpublished trials. The date of the most recent search was 8 March 2011. All randomised, placebo-controlled trials considering the use of topical or systemic antifungal therapy in the treatment of CRS and allergic fungal sinusitis (AFS). CRS was defined using either the European Position Paper on Rhinosinusitis and Nasal Polyps (EPOS) or American Academy of Otolaryngology - Head and Neck Surgery (AAO-HNS) criteria. We reviewed the titles and abstracts of all studies obtained from the searches and selected trials that met the eligibility criteria. We extracted data using a pre-determined data extraction form. There was significant heterogeneity of outcome data reporting with reports containing both parametric and non-parametric representations of data for the same outcomes. Means and standard deviations for change data were unavailable for a number of trials. Due to the limited reported data, we contacted authors and used original data for data analysis. Six studies were included (380 participants). Five studies investigated topical antifungals and one study investigated systemic antifungals. The risk of bias in all included studies was low, with all trials being double-blinded and randomised. Pooled meta-analysis showed no statistically significant benefit of topical or systemic antifungals over placebo for any outcome. Symptom scores in fact statistically favoured the placebo group. Adverse event reporting was statistically significantly higher in the antifungal group. On the basis of this meta-analysis, there is no evidence to support the use of either topical or systemic antifungal treatment in the management of CRS.

Timeline
X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
As of 1 July 2024, you may notice a temporary increase in the numbers of X profiles with Unknown location. Click here to learn more.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 61 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 61 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 6 10%
Student > Master 6 10%
Student > Bachelor 6 10%
Student > Doctoral Student 5 8%
Professor > Associate Professor 3 5%
Other 9 15%
Unknown 26 43%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 19 31%
Psychology 3 5%
Nursing and Health Professions 3 5%
Immunology and Microbiology 2 3%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 2 3%
Other 5 8%
Unknown 27 44%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 26 October 2018.
All research outputs
#17,576,385
of 26,557,909 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#11,547
of 13,245 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#216,906
of 349,631 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#178
of 219 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 26,557,909 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 31st percentile – i.e., 31% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 13,245 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 33.7. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% 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 349,631 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 35th percentile – i.e., 35% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 219 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 17th percentile – i.e., 17% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.