Effect of Nasal Steroids on Nasal Obstruction in Septal Deviation: A Double-Blind Randomized Controlled Trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective: This study sought to prospectively determine the effect of intranasal steroids versus placebo on nasal obstruction in septal deviation. Methods: This was a single-center randomized placebo-controlled double-blind trial with crossover in which all study participants received 6 weeks of therapy with Nasacort (Chattem, Inc.) and with Ayr saline spray (B.F. Ascher). Participants were randomized to one of two groups with a 2-week washout period between drugs. Nasal Obstruction Symptom Evaluation (NOSE) scores were collected at baseline and after each study drug. A subset of patients subsequently underwent surgical intervention after both drugs and additional NOSE scores were collected postoperatively. Results: Forty-two patients completed both study drugs with NOSE scores collected. Thirty-two patients underwent surgery and postoperative NOSE scores were collected. There was no significant difference in baseline demographics between the groups. There was no significant difference in mean NOSE scores in either group from baseline to the completion of the first and second study drugs. There was no difference in the change in mean NOSE score from baseline to postsaline (−3.9) versus baseline to poststeroid (−5.8, p = 0.60). Surgery resulted in a significant change in NOSE score at all postoperative time points (mean of −50, range of −47.2 to −53.6). Conclusions: We found no significant effect of intranasal steroids on nasal obstruction as compared with placebo. Surgery, however, was associated with significant sustained improvement in nasal obstruction. These data suggest that in patients with nasal obstruction due to a fixed cause, medical therapy with intranasal steroids is unlikely to be beneficial.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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".