The Laryngoscope · 2024
Intrapolyp Steroid Injection for Nasal Polyposis: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis.
СтатьяNetwork Meta-AnalysisСистематический обзорНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Albazee Ebraheem, Abu-Zaid Ahmed, Althaidy Mubarak, Alqunaee Marwan
Аннотация
OBJECTIVE: To conduct a systematic review and network meta-analysis to evaluate the safety and efficacy of intrapolyp steroid injection compared with oral steroids, nasal steroid wash, nasal steroid spray, and a control group in patients with chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyps (CRSwNP).
DATA SOURCES: PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, Embase, and CENTRAL.
REVIEW METHODS: Both randomized and non-randomized clinical trials were included. For risk of bias assessment, we used the RoB-2 and ROBINS-I tools. Our outcomes focused on safety and efficacy, including rates of visual disturbance and bleeding, as well as improvements in nasal polyps evaluated through three domains: endoscopic, radiologic, and patient-reported assessments. Safety data were pooled as events (%), while efficacy data were pooled as mean difference (MD) or standardized mean difference (SMD).
RESULTS: Eight clinical trials involving 579 patients were analyzed. The pooled analyses showed low event rates for visual disturbances (event rate = 0.64%, 95% CI [0.00%, 2.23%]) and bleeding (event rate = 0.61%, 95% CI [0.00%, 2.25%]). Additionally, intrapolyp steroid injections were found to be comparable with oral steroids, with no statistically significant differences. Moreover, intrapolyp steroid injections demonstrated some superiority over nasal sprays, nasal washes, and the control group.
CONCLUSION: This network meta-analysis confirms that intrapolyp steroid injections have a favorable safety and efficacy profile as a viable management option for CRSwNP. The injections showed comparable efficacy with oral steroids and demonstrated certain advantages over other treatments, such as nasal sprays and washes. Further research with larger sample sizes and standardized protocols are needed. Laryngoscope, 135:1872-1883, 2025.
DATA SOURCES: PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, Embase, and CENTRAL.
REVIEW METHODS: Both randomized and non-randomized clinical trials were included. For risk of bias assessment, we used the RoB-2 and ROBINS-I tools. Our outcomes focused on safety and efficacy, including rates of visual disturbance and bleeding, as well as improvements in nasal polyps evaluated through three domains: endoscopic, radiologic, and patient-reported assessments. Safety data were pooled as events (%), while efficacy data were pooled as mean difference (MD) or standardized mean difference (SMD).
RESULTS: Eight clinical trials involving 579 patients were analyzed. The pooled analyses showed low event rates for visual disturbances (event rate = 0.64%, 95% CI [0.00%, 2.23%]) and bleeding (event rate = 0.61%, 95% CI [0.00%, 2.25%]). Additionally, intrapolyp steroid injections were found to be comparable with oral steroids, with no statistically significant differences. Moreover, intrapolyp steroid injections demonstrated some superiority over nasal sprays, nasal washes, and the control group.
CONCLUSION: This network meta-analysis confirms that intrapolyp steroid injections have a favorable safety and efficacy profile as a viable management option for CRSwNP. The injections showed comparable efficacy with oral steroids and demonstrated certain advantages over other treatments, such as nasal sprays and washes. Further research with larger sample sizes and standardized protocols are needed. Laryngoscope, 135:1872-1883, 2025.