Single-blind study of manuka honey in allergic fungal rhinosinusitis.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Some patients continue to suffer from symptoms of sinusitis after maximal topical medical and surgical treatment for allergic fungal rhinosinusitis (AFRS). Manuka honey has well-documented antimicrobial and antifungal properties and is currently being used by physicians across the world for a wide variety of medical problems. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to determine the effectiveness of Medihoney Antibacterial Medical Honey in patients who continue to suffer from AFRS resistant to conventional medical treatment after bilateral functional endoscopic sinus surgery and maximal postoperative medical management. METHODS: A randomized, single-blind, prospective study was conducted at a tertiary centre. Thirty-four patients with AFRS sprayed one nostril with 2 mL of a 50/50 mixture of honey-saline solution once a day at night for 30 days. Otherwise, patients continued with their regular nasal regimen in both nostrils. A 5-point improvement in our clinic's endoscopic grading system was considered significant. During their pre- and postassessment, patients' sinus cavities were cultured, and the patients filled out a Sino-Nasal Outcome Test (SNOT-22) questionnaire to assess subjective nasal symptoms. RESULTS: As a group, the 34 patients who completed the study showed no significant improvement in the treated nostrils versus control nostrils (p = 1.000). However, the nine patients who did respond to the honey treatment relative to their control side responded very well. A number of these patients had high IgE levels in their blood. The manuka honey did not appear to modify the culture results in the ethmoid cavities after 30 days of treatment, but patients who completed the SNOT-22 questionnaire indicated global improvement in their symptoms while receiving the honey spray (p = .0220). CONCLUSION: Overall, topical manuka honey application in AFRS, despite showing symptomatic benefits, did not demonstrate a global improvement in endoscopically staged disease, but specific patients did show significant positive responses. Further research is needed to determine the factors of the patients who responded well to the honey spray, which may correlate to high IgE levels.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".