Otolaryngology--head and neck surgery : official journal of American Academy of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery · 2018
Management of Rhinitis Medicamentosa: A Systematic Review.
СтатьяПоддержка исследования: вне правительства СШАСистематический 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.
Zucker Shana M, Barton Blair M, McCoul Edward D
Аннотация
OBJECTIVE: Rhinitis medicamentosa (RM) is a common condition resulting from overuse of topical nasal decongestants. Despite the prevalence in otolaryngologic practice, a clear treatment protocol has not been established. Our objective was to review the current published literature pertaining to the treatment of RM with the possibility of finding data that support one treatment over another.
DATA SOURCES: PubMed, Embase, Cochrane, and Web of Science databases were examined for patients diagnosed with RM resulting from chronic use of topical nasal decongestants.
REVIEW METHODS: The PRISMA standard (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses) was utilized to identify English-language studies reporting treatment of patients with the primary diagnosis of RM after chronic use of a topical decongestant. Outcome measures of interest included patient-reported symptom relief and objective parameters. MINORS criteria (methodological index for nonrandomized studies) were used to assess the quality of articles.
RESULTS: A total of 350 articles were identified, 9 of which met final inclusion criteria for qualitative analysis. Outcomes defined in each publication were highly varied and relied on several unstandardized measures. The most commonly reported treatment option was topical nasal steroids, although overall there was limited evidence on which to base treatment recommendation.
CONCLUSIONS: There is not adequate evidence to develop a standardized treatment protocol for RM. The development of a uniform questionnaire, standard outcomes to be measured, and a method of assessing such outcomes is necessary. Prospective randomized controlled studies are warranted to determine the optimal treatment regimen following diagnosis of RM.
DATA SOURCES: PubMed, Embase, Cochrane, and Web of Science databases were examined for patients diagnosed with RM resulting from chronic use of topical nasal decongestants.
REVIEW METHODS: The PRISMA standard (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses) was utilized to identify English-language studies reporting treatment of patients with the primary diagnosis of RM after chronic use of a topical decongestant. Outcome measures of interest included patient-reported symptom relief and objective parameters. MINORS criteria (methodological index for nonrandomized studies) were used to assess the quality of articles.
RESULTS: A total of 350 articles were identified, 9 of which met final inclusion criteria for qualitative analysis. Outcomes defined in each publication were highly varied and relied on several unstandardized measures. The most commonly reported treatment option was topical nasal steroids, although overall there was limited evidence on which to base treatment recommendation.
CONCLUSIONS: There is not adequate evidence to develop a standardized treatment protocol for RM. The development of a uniform questionnaire, standard outcomes to be measured, and a method of assessing such outcomes is necessary. Prospective randomized controlled studies are warranted to determine the optimal treatment regimen following diagnosis of RM.