Treatment of Chronic Rhinosinusitis Refractory to Other Treatments with Topical Antibiotic Therapy Delivered by Means of a Large‐Particle Nebulizer: Results of a Controlled Trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To study the efficacy of nebulized topical saline-tobramycin solution in patients with chronic rhinosinusitis refractory to medical and surgical therapy. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: Twenty patients in whom endoscopic sinus surgery failed to relieve symptoms entered a randomized, double-blind trial of tobramycin-saline solution or saline-only solution administered thrice daily to the nasal passages by means of a large-particle nebulizer apparatus for 4 weeks, followed by a 4-week observation period. Outcome measures of symptoms, quality of life, and endoscopic aspect of sinus mucosa were assessed. RESULTS: Both treatments were well tolerated and produced equivalent improvement in symptoms, quality of life, and mucosal aspect. Treatment with the tobramycin-saline solution gave more rapid improvement of pain, but led to the development of nasal congestion. CONCLUSION: Therapy with a 4-week course of large-particle nebulized aerosol therapy improves symptomatology and objective parameters of rhinosinusitis in patients refractory to surgical and medical therapies. Addition of tobramycin appears of minimal benefit. The mechanism of this effect is unexplained. SIGNIFICANCE: Large-particle nebulized aerosol therapy may offer a safe and effective management alternative for patients with refractory rhinosinusitis.
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 | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
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".