Using nasal steroids to treat nasal obstruction caused by adenoid hypertrophy: Does it work?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To systematically review the evidence for the usage of nasal steroids to improve symptoms of nasal airway obstruction in children with adenoidal hypertrophy. DATA SOURCES: Published studies indexed in the MEDLINE (1951 to 2008), EMBASE (1974 to 2008), and the Cochrane databases (Issue 3, 2008). REVIEW METHODS: Data from the included trials were extracted and trial quality was assessed. Meta-analysis was not applicable and data were summarized in a narrative format. Evidence from excluded studies was also discussed. RESULTS: Seven studies (six randomized controlled trials and one cohort study) met the inclusion criteria of the review, including a total of 493 patients. Six of these studies demonstrated significant efficacy of various nasal steroids (mometasone, beclomethasone, flunisolide) in improving nasal obstruction symptoms and in reducing adenoid size, as measured with symptom scores and fiber-optic nasopharyngeal endoscopy, respectively. The response appeared to be a group effect and may be maintained longer-term by continuing nasal steroids at a lower maintenance dose. The treatment was safe and well-tolerated with few minor adverse events. CONCLUSION: The available evidence suggests that nasal steroids may significantly improve nasal obstruction symptoms in children with adenoid hypertrophy. This improvement appears to be associated with a reduction of adenoid size. Evidence of long-term efficacy is limited but suggests that in many children maintenance therapy is needed if symptom-relief is to persist. Further studies are required to support the use of nasal steroids as a first-line approach in these children.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 teacher head, 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".