Treatment of sinus headache using a device that combines acoustic vibration with oscillating expiratory pressure
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Objective To determine if simultaneous administration of acoustic vibration and oscillating expiratory pressure affects the severity of facial pain among patients with complaint of “sinus headache”. Methods This is a prospective single‐arm observational study performed at a tertiary care medical center. Subjects with complaint of sinus headache without evidence of chronic rhinosinusitis on exam or computed tomography participated in a clinical study applying simultaneous acoustic vibrations and positive expiratory pressure to the nasal cavity twice daily over 4 weeks. Efficacy was assessed using three validated pain metrics—pain visual analog scale (VAS), brief pain inventory‐short form (BPI‐SF), and McGill pain questionnaire‐short form (MPQ‐SF). Device safety and patient satisfaction were also assessed using questionnaires. Results Twenty‐nine patients (mean age 49 years, 55% female) completed the study without any major adverse events. At the 4 week follow‐up, facial pain VAS improved from mean ± SD of 59.6 ± 15.7 to 34.6 ± 21.7 ( p < .001), BPI mean pain (mean ± standard deviation) improved from 4.4 ± 2.0 to 2.9 ± 1.9 ( p = .007), and MPQ‐SF total improved from 12.2 ± 6.5 to 6.5 ± 5.2 ( p < .001) with approximately 70% of patients achieving a minimal clinically important difference (MCID) across all metrics. Additionally, pain VAS was assessed 5 min after a single use at baseline with significant improvement ( p < .001). Eighty‐six percent of subjects would both use device again and recommend it to others. Conclusions Simultaneous administration of acoustic vibration and oscillating expiratory pressure appears to be a safe treatment for sinus headaches in patients without objective evidence of chronic sinusitis. Results from this initial study are promising with regard to efficacy in treatment of sinus headaches but will require further study. Level of evidence 2c.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 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".