Cited by 56Sinusitis and nasal conditionsAllergic Rhinitis and SensitizationNasal Surgery and Airway Studies

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Systematic Review of Immunotherapy for Chronic Rhinosinusitis

Abstract

Background Immunotherapy (IT) has been well established as an effective treatment for allergic rhinitis (AR), but little is known about the benefits of IT on clinical outcomes of comorbid chronic rhinosinusitis (CRS). The goal of this publication is to systematically review the literature regarding outcomes of IT in patients with atopic CRS. Methods A systematic review of the literature was conducted including studies that assessed the efficacy of IT on clinical outcome measures in CRS including without polyp, with polyp, and allergic fungal rhinosinusitis subgroups. Excluded articles were those only reporting outcomes specific to asthma or AR. Results Seven studies met the inclusion and exclusion criteria for this review, none of which were randomized controlled trials. Generally, symptom scores improved in patients treated with IT when compared with baseline data and control patients. Objective endoscopic exam measures improved with IT treatment in short-term studies. Significant improvements were observed in radiographic assessments, and there was a decreased necessity for revision surgery, interventional office visits, and intranasal and oral steroid use. Conclusion Conclusions are limited by the paucity of available data on the efficacy of IT for treating CRS-specific outcome measures. There is weak evidence to support the use of IT as an adjunctive treatment in CRS patients, particularly in the postoperative period.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.2500/ajra.2014.28.4019

Cites

1 of 1 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

Verification

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?

  • Efficacy tests do not support the use of allergen immunotherapy in chronic rhinosinusitis.

    “In addition, efficacy tests do not support its use in CRS [178].”

    From Position Paper on Nasal Obstruction: Evaluation and Treatment (2018) · cites this paper as [178]

  • The conclusions of a recent systematic review on the clinical efficacy of allergen immunotherapy in chronic rhinosinusitis with and without nasal polyps and in allergic fungal rhinosinusitis were very limited owing to the scarcity of available data.

    “A recent systematic review assessed the clinical efficacy of AIT in patients with CRS with and without NP and in patients with allergic fungal rhinosinusitis. The conclusions were very limited owing to the scarcity of available data.”

    From Position Paper on Nasal Obstruction: Evaluation and Treatment (2018) · cites this paper as [178]

Citations

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 23

  1. Yehouessi-Vignikin B., Eur Ann Otorhinolaryngol Head Neck Dis, S1879
  2. 10.1097/MOO.0b013e32835ac640 · DOI
  3. 10.1111/j.1399-3038.2010.01124.x · DOI
  4. 10.1016/j.jaci.2008.06.003 · DOI · Paper page
  5. 10.2500/ajra.2013.27.3929 · DOI
  6. 10.2500/ajra.2010.24.3499 · DOI
  7. 10.1111/j.1365-2222.2011.03794.x · DOI
  8. 10.2217/imt.12.157 · DOI
  9. Radulovic S., 2010, Cochrane Database Syst Rev, 12, CD002893
  10. 10.7326/0003-4819-151-4-200908180-00136 · DOI · Paper page
  11. 10.1016/S0385-8146(12)80018-6 · DOI
  12. 10.1177/019459989411000410 · DOI
  13. 10.1055/s-2007-1008433 · DOI
  14. 10.1097/00005537-199811000-00007 · DOI
  15. 10.1067/mhn.2002.129806 · DOI
  16. 10.1016/S1081-1206(10)61435-4 · DOI
  17. 10.1067/mhn.2001.119585 · DOI
  18. 10.2500/ajra.2009.23.3355a · DOI
  19. 10.1016/S0194-59989770203-1 · DOI
  20. 10.1056/NEJM199908123410702 · DOI
  21. 10.1111/j.1398-9995.2006.01011.x · DOI
  22. 10.2500/ar.2013.4.0045 · DOI
  23. 10.1002/alr.21141 · DOI

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Metadata

Authors
DeYoung, K., Wentzel, J. L., Schlosser, R. J., Nguyen, S. A., & Soler, Z. M.
Affiliations
Medical University of South Carolina (US)
Venue
American Journal of Rhinology & Allergy
Published
2014-03
Volume
28
Issue
2
Pages
145-150
ISSN
  • 1945-8924 (ISSN-L)
  • 1945-8932
OpenAlex
W1973523391
Cited by
56
References
1
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 4 · 2024: 5 · 2023: 4 · 2022: 4 · 2021: 7 · 2020: 3 · 2019: 4 · 2018: 7 · 2017: 5 · 2016: 4 · 2015: 5 · 2014: 1
FWCI
0.91
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • American Journal of Rhinology and Allergy (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Otorhinolaryngology › Sinusitis and nasal conditions
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Immunology and Allergy › Allergic Rhinitis and Sensitization
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Surgery › Nasal Surgery and Airway Studies
Keywords
immunotherapy, chronic rhinosinusitis, allergic fungal rhinosinusitis, nasal polyps, symptom scores, endoscopic outcomes, radiographic outcomes, reoperation, intranasal corticosteroids, oral corticosteroids, adjunctive therapy
MeSH terms
Administration, Intranasal, Animals, Chronic Disease, Desensitization, Immunologic, Humans, Nasal Polyps, Rhinitis, Sinusitis, Evidence-Based Medicine, Invasive Pulmonary Aspergillosis

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