Long‐term low‐dose macrolides for chronic rhinosinusitis in adults – a systematic review of the literature
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Chronic rhinosinusitis is a very common inflammatory disease that impairs quality of life and is associated with high healthcare spending. Chronic rhinosinusitis treatment commonly involves the use of intranasal corticosteroids, oral antibiotics, and surgery. Macrolides have been identified as a potential treatment option for chronic rhinosinusitis due to their immunomodulatory effects; however, the evidence supporting their use is still conflicting. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this systematic review was to evaluate new evidence along with previously reported studies of the use of macrolides in the treatment of chronic rhinosinusitis. SEARCH STRATEGY: Medline, EMBASE, Cochrane CENTRAL, LILACS, clinicaltrials.gov, and the International Clinical Trials Registry Platform were all searched (until June 2015 Medline and EMBASE searches were updated January 2016). Randomised controlled trials comparing low-dose macrolide antibiotics versus placebo, as an adjunct to other therapies, or low-dose macrolide therapy alone versus other therapies were included in this review. EVALUATION METHOD: Quality of the evidence was evaluated using the Cochrane risk of bias tool. Continuous outcomes were expressed as mean differences or standardised mean differences with 95% confidence interval. Data were pooled using fixed-effects models. RESULTS: Nine randomised controlled trials met the inclusion criteria. Studies were classified into three distinct comparisons: Low-dose macrolide therapy vs. placebo, low-dose macrolide +/- nasal steroids vs. nasal steroid and low-dose macrolides vs. other therapies. The overall quality of the evidence is low due to limitations in study design, imprecision, and indirectness. CONCLUSIONS: Positive results were seen with the use of macrolide therapy in the postoperative period in patients with nasal polyps. A firm conclusion with respect to the effectiveness of the use of macrolides for the treatment of chronic rhinosinusitis cannot be reached based on the available evidence. Further study using a placebo-controlled design evaluating the use of macrolides in clearly defined chronic rhinosinusitis populations is needed.
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 | 0.005 | 0.019 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.008 | 0.007 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".