CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 118Sinusitis and nasal conditionsRespiratory viral infections researchNasal Surgery and Airway Studies

A Clinical Trial of Hypertonic Saline Nasal Spray in Subjects With the Common Cold or Rhinosinusitis

Adam, P.·1998·Archives of Family Medicine
DOI 10.1001/archfami.7.1.39
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Objective To determine whether hypertonic saline nasal spray relieves nasal symptoms and shortens illness duration in patients with the common cold or acute rhinosinusitis. Design Randomized trial with 2 control groups. Setting Two family practice clinics. Participants One hundred forty-three adult patients with a cold or sinus infection. Patients with allergic rhinitis, symptoms for more than 3 weeks, or other respiratory diagnoses were excluded, as were those who had used topical decongestants. Intervention Hypertonic saline or normal saline spray 3 times a day or observation. Subjects completed a 7-day symptom checklist that included a well-being question ("Do you feel back to normal?"). Main outcome measures Nasal symptom score (sum of scores for nasal congestion, rhinorrhea, and headache) on day 3 and day of well-being (day of symptom resolution). Results Data were collected for 119 subjects. No difference was found in either primary outcome when hypertonic saline was compared with either normal saline or observation. Mean day of well-being was 8.3 (95% confidence interval [CI], 6.9-9.7), 9.2 (95% CI, 6.9-11.43), and 8.0 (95% CI, 6.7-9.3) days in the hypertonic saline, normal saline, and observation groups, respectively. Day 3 mean nasal symptom score was 3.8 (95% CI, 3.0-4.5) for hypertonic saline, 3.7 (95% CI, 2.9-4.5) for normal saline, and 4.1 (95% CI, 3.5-4.7) for observation. Only 44% of the patients would use the hypertonic saline spray again. Thirty-two percent n…

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1001/archfami.7.1.39

Cites

14 of 14 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Three studies reported nasal symptoms at day three, and all showed no difference between the saline nasal irrigation group and the observation only group (Adam 1998; Bollag 1984; King 2012).

    “Three studies reported nasal symptoms at day three. All showed no difference between the saline nasal irrigation group and the observation only group (Adam 1998; Bollag 1984; King 2012).”

    From Saline nasal irrigation for acute upper respiratory tract infections (2015) · cites this paper as Adam 1998

  • Two studies reported nasal symptom scores at day seven, and neither reported statistical differences between the treatment groups (Adam 1998; King 2012).

    “Two studies also reported nasal symptom scores at day seven, again neither reporting statistical differences between the treatment groups (Adam 1998; King 2012).”

    From Saline nasal irrigation for acute upper respiratory tract infections (2015) · cites this paper as Adam 1998

  • In Adam 1998, participants and clinicians were blinded, but blinding of outcome assessors was not discussed (low risk of bias).

    “Participants and clinicians were blinded in Adam 1998, but blinding of outcome assessors was not discussed (low risk of bias).”

    From Saline nasal irrigation for acute upper respiratory tract infections (2015) · cites this paper as Adam 1998

  • Adam 1998 reported 24 of 143 participants lost to follow-up, and a further 35 of the completers failed to submit a complete symptom checklist; intention-to-treat analysis was performed (unclear risk of bias).

    “Adam 1998 reported 24 of 143 participants lost to follow‐up, although a further 35 of the completers failed to submit a complete symptom checklist. Intention‐to‐treat analysis was performed (unclear risk of bias).”

    From Saline nasal irrigation for acute upper respiratory tract infections (2015) · cites this paper as Adam 1998

  • The pooled data for King 2012 and Adam 1998 showed no significant difference between normal saline and the control group (Analysis 1.1).

    “The pooled data for King 2012 and Adam 1998 showed no significant difference between normal saline and the control group (Analysis 1.1)”

    From Saline nasal irrigation for acute upper respiratory tract infections (2015) · cites this paper as Adam 1998

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

1 of the 15 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Adam, P.
Affiliations
University of Minnesota (US)
Corresponding author
Adam, P.
Venue
Archives of Family Medicine
Publisher
CLOCKSS Archive
Published
1998-01-01
Volume
7
Issue
1
Pages
39-43
ISSN
1063-3987 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1001/archfami.7.1.39
OpenAlex
W2044588295
Cited by
118
References
15
Citations by year
2023: 1 · 2022: 2 · 2021: 8 · 2020: 10 · 2019: 3 · 2018: 2 · 2017: 7 · 2016: 6 · 2015: 10 · 2014: 5 · 2013: 4 · 2012: 10
FWCI
1.59
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Archives of Family Medicine (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Otorhinolaryngology › Sinusitis and nasal conditions
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Epidemiology › Respiratory viral infections research
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Surgery › Nasal Surgery and Airway Studies
Keywords
common cold, acute sinusitis, nasal congestion, rhinorrhea, headache, disease duration, symptom resolution, normal saline, patient acceptability, adverse effects
MeSH terms
Administration, Intranasal, Adult, Common Cold, Female, Humans, Male, Rhinitis, Saline Solution, Hypertonic, Sinusitis, Time Factors, Treatment Failure

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review