Nebulized bacitracin/colimycin: a treatment option in recalcitrant chronic rhinosinusitis with Staphylococcus aureus? A double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled, cross-over pilot study.
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Despite optimal medical therapy and endoscopic sinus surgery there still remains a group of unfortunate patients suffering from exacerbations of recalcitrant chronic sinusitis. We have performed a pilot study in order to determine whether nebulized topical antibiotic therapy improves sinusitis symptoms more than saline-based placebo in patients with recalcitrant chronic rhinosinusitis. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blind, cross-over pilot study was conducted in 14 patients with recalcitrant CRS. Nasal irrigation with bacitracin/colimycin or placebo using the RhinoFlow nebulizer twice daily was administered in combination with oral levofloxacin. Severity of a diversity of symptoms was measured using the VAS score, a Disease-Specific Symptom Score and the SF-36 questionnaire. Nasal endoscopic findings were also assessed. RESULTS: For most VAS items and Disease-Specific Symptom Scores, a reduction in severity of symptoms was noted in both the bacitracin/colimycin and the placebo group. No significant difference was found between the 2 arms (bacitracin/colimycin vs. placebo). Most SF-36 items improved, compared with the situation before treatment in both groups. However no significant difference was found between the verum and placebo arm. Endoscopic findings did not reveal significant differences when comparing the 2 treatments. CONCLUSION AND DISCUSSION: The outcome of this study suggests a beneficial effect of nebulizing the nose with saline. This study again shows that adding antibiotics to local saline is not effective. Although the placebo-controlled studies looking at the effect of local antibiotics are all small they all point to the same direction: no effect. Definite conclusions however need a large randomized, multicenter study.
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.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it