*Guide for these questions are available in separate PDF files (SBCM Appraisal tips-Treatment and Reference CEBM

CAT form)

Article title AND Authors (copy Was Was follow-up Were the Were patients, Were the groups Aside from the Overall, is the Population Outcome Intervention and Method design
YEAR and paste ALL assignment adequate & patients analyzed health workers, similar at the experimental study valid? Control/place used
the names) of subjects complete? in the groups to and study start of the trial? intervention,
to which they were personnel were the
treatments randomized? “blind” to groups treated
randomized treatment? equally?
?
1.A Randomized, Tantilipikorn, P., Yes. There were Yes, the Yes. This study Yes all Yes. The groups No CRS patients who Improvement of Intervention used is Prospective
Prospective, Tunsuriyawong, “A dropouts in comparison was double- participants were treated underwent ESS subjective dexpanthenol nasal randomized control
Double-Blind P., Jareoncharsri prospective, this study. between groups blinded, post- included are equally. They symptoms, spray, while isotonic study
Study of the P., Bedavanija A., randomized, Initially 50 was made with operative visit diagnosed case of were assessed mucociliary transit saline nasal spray is
Efficacy of Assanasen P., placebo- patients were intention to treat evaluation CRS. using same time and objective used as control.
Dexpanthenol Bunnag C., controlled recruited for analysis. - done by single- tools. - endoscopic score
Nasal Spray on Metheetrairut C. trial was ESS Material and evaluator did Materials and
the Postoperative done in the procedures, Methods not recognize methods
Treatment of patients who however only paragraph 8 the name and paragraph 5
Patients with were 33 patients diagnosis of and 6
Chronic scheduled completed the patients. -
Rhinosinusitis for ESS.” - study Materials and
after Endoscopic Materials protocol. - Methods
Surgery (2012) and Methods Results 1st and paragraph 6
Paragraph 1 3rd paragraph

“Pre-
operatively,
the patients
who agreed
to
participate in
the present
study were
randomized
to receive
either
dexpantheno
l nasal spray
(Mar Plus,
Bad Vilbel,
Germany) or
normal
saline nasal
spray.
Randomizati
on was done
according to
 age and
presence of
nasal polyp.”
- Materials
and Methods
paragraph 3

2. Comparative Wormald PJ, Cain Yes. “Each Chronic sinusitis Comparison of nasal
Study of Three T., Oates L., subject was patients who douche, spray, and
Methods of Nasal Hawke L. Wong I. randomized have undergone nebulizer
Irrigation (2004) to either the bilateral
left or right endoscopic sinus
nasal cavity surgery more
for testing” - than 3 months
Materials
and Methods
paragraph 2
3. A Clinical Trial Adam P.,
of Hypertonic Stiffman M.,
Saline Nasal Spray Blake R.
in Subjects With
the Common Cold
or Rhinosinusitis
(1998)
4
5
6
7 A Daily Nasal Liselott Tano and
Spray with Saline Krister Tano
Prevents
Symptoms of
Rhinitis (2004)
8 Nasal Saline for Melissa A.
Chronic Sinonasal Pynnonen,
Symptoms Shraddha S.
Mukerji, H. Myra
A Randomized Kim, Meredith E.
Controlled Trial Adams, Jeffrey E.
(2007) Terrell
9 Effect of Nigella Ahmad Rezaeian
sativa Nasal Spray and Sanaz
on Amoushahi
the Treatment of Khouzani
Chronic
Rhinosinusitis
Without a Nasal
Polyp
(2018)
10. Effects of Jayant M. Pinto, Yes It was not Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Adults undergoing Without Doyle Intervention: The Randomized,
saline sprays on M.D., Samy stated if follow bilateral FESS for Splint: use of 0.9% Normal controlled clinical
symptoms after Elwany, M.D., This study up was done in Demographics Investigators Analysis of the All remaining recurrent and Saline Nasal Spray, trial
endoscopic was a this study and the and patients demographic data aspects of the
Ph.D., Fuad M. chronic and 3% buffered
sinus surgery HS group reported
Baroody, M.D., randomized, radiographic were blinded and radiographic postoperative sinusitis. Hypertonic Saline
The patients significantly
and controlled staging were with regard to staging showed care were in Nasal Spray
recorded their that the three greater nasal
Robert M. clinical trial compared by the accordance
symptoms and groups were well discharge scores
Naclerio, M.D. in use of the chi- sprays. with
pain square test. matched at than NS and NI Comparator: No
adults the routine of
medication The bottles entry into the trial groups spray (NI).
undergoing the attending
usage twice were coded
bilateral surgeon and
daily on a and
FESS for usually HS group had
diary card. The investigators
recurrent consisted higher pain scores
symptoms were blinded
and chronic of an antibiotic compared with the
measured to the contents
sinusitis. and pain NI group during the
were modified
Sixty medication.10 2nd day as well as
from the
patients One attending the 3rd day
Chronic
were surgeon
Sinusitis
randomized performed 85%
Survey With Doyle Splint
to one of of the surgeries
three in this study.
parallel HS group had
groups: 0.9% higher discharge
NS, 3% scores compared
buffered HS, with the NS and NI
or no spray groups during the
(NI). 2nd day, the 3rd
Investigators day, as well as the
and patients fourth day
were blinded
 with regard Pain scores in the
to the HS group were
sprays. significantly higher
compared to the
NS and NI groups
during the third day
as well as during
the fourth day

Patients with Doyle

splints reported
significantly greater
pain scores than
did patients
without splints in
all three
groups
11. The effect of Garrett Yes Yes It was not stated Yes Yes Yes Yes Adult patients Degree of Nasal Intervention: Randomized double-
saline solutions on Hauptman, MD if subjected with subjective patency and Patients were blind trial.
nasal patency and and Matthew W. This was a There assigned to their This was a The groups were All the groups rhinosinusitis Mucociliary treated
mucociliary Ryan, MD double- were No group were double-blind, all included in the were treated of any duration, clearance using the with either
clearance in blind, dropouts analyzed randomized study based on equally based on the saccha physiological or
rhinosinusitis randomized in this although chi- study the inclusion major and minor rine hypertonic saline
patients study. After study. square test, the criteria symptoms of clearance test
the Fisher exact test, rhinosinusitis method. Comparator: No
and the Mann- An promulgated by
performance independent control was involved
of baseline Whitney U test the Rhinosinusitis in the study
were used to test study Task Force
studies, pharmacist
research for statistical and others and a
significance dispensed minimum
subjects buffered
were (Methods, Sinonasal
Paragraph 7) physiological or Outcome Test-20
randomly buffered
assigned to (SNOT-20) score
hypertonic sa of 20.
either line
buffered (3%) according
physiological to the
saline or computer-
buffered generated
hypertonic randomization
saline. list.
Random
ization
was
performed
 with the use
of a
computerize
d ran
dom
number
generator.
12. A Blinded, David A. M. Yes Yes No Yes Yes Yes Yes Healthy Adults Ciliary Beat Intervention: Randomized
Randomized, Wabnitz; Peter- with no rhinitis or Frequency Patients given Controlled Trial
Controlled Study John Wormald Both There were The subjects were Volunteers and Aside from All groups were a history of an sodium chloride
on concentratio No dropouts not analyzed in investigators demographic data treated equally upper respiratory nasal spray with
the Effect of ns of saline in this study. the groups they were blinded to such as age and tract infection in concentrations
Buffered 0.9% and were were assigned. the gender, all the of 0.9% and 3.0%
3% Sodium administered concentrations participants met preceding 6 and buffered to pH
Chloride to each administered the inclusion weeks. 7.6 and placed in
Intranasal Sprays subject, and on the criteria Furthermore, randomly
on Ciliary Beat the bottles respective none had used a numbered unmarked
Frequency were sides of the topical nasal bottles.
randomly nasal cavity. medication in the
labeled right (Methods preceding 3
or left nostril Paragraph 2) weeks, and none
were smokers Comparator: CGF of
as prede subjects prior to
termined administration of
by computer Nasal Spray
allocation

13. Effects of Boston, M, Humans N/A N/A N/A N/A yes No

Nasal Saline MD; Dobraiz, are not
Spray on EJ, BS; used in
Human Buescher, S, this
Neutrophils MD; Darrow study;
(2003) DH, MD DDS Only
neutrop
hils were
used

15. Effects of SAMI 20 There It was not The The No other no

topical drops BERCIN, healthy were No stated patients, volunteers of extraneous
and sprays on AHMET URAL voluntee dropouts whether health the study factors
mucociliary & AHMET rs were in this patients were workers were not were stated
transport time KUTLUHAN included study. compliant or and study described and in the study
and and However, not. It was personel characteristics
nasal air flow grouped it did not not stated were not were not
(2009) accordin state how how many blind to compared
g to many patients were treatment
 rhinoma patients examined at
nometric were the end of
measure examined the trial.
ments: at the end
voluntee of the
rs with trial.
nasal air
flow]500
ml at
150 daPa
constitut
ed group
1, while
individua
ls whose
nasal air
flow
wasB500
ml at
150
daPa
made up
group 2.
Both
groups
were
compose
d
of 10
patients.
The age
range
was
between
20 and
32
years
(mean
age
25.195.5
)

18. Effect of Shaimaa Yes, the There The patients No blinding There were All the YES
applying Ahmed Awad patients were no were of patients no statistically participants
saline spray were dropouts analyzed in or personel significant were
on nasal randoml in the the groups to were stated difference in treated
health status y study as which they in the characteristics equally in
of assigned the were study. between the the study as
critically ill into the number of randomized The study control and noted in
patients groups patients as the compared study groups the
(2018) to which randomize number of saline nasal methods
they d is the patients spray and section
belong. same as randomized is nasal care
60 the equal to the by cleasing
patients number of number the outer
were patients at analyzed nostril with
randoml the end of tap water
y the study
assigned
into 2
groups

The
study
used
quasi
experim
ental
method

14. Squeeze K. I. Yes the There Yes, the The The patients The two Yes
bottle versus Macdonald, patients were no patients were surgeons were similar groups
saline spray M.D., wre dropouts analyzed in were at the start of were
after F.R.C.S.C., E. randoml stated in the groups to blinded to the trial treated
endoscopic D. Wright, y the study. which they the equally.
sinus M.D.C.M., assigned The were experiment Preoperativ
surgery for M.Ed., L. J. to the number of randomized. however e CT, LM
chronic Sowerby, groups patients Primary the score and
rhinosinusitis: M.D., they are equal analysis was patients Multivariat
A pilot F.R.C.S.C., belonge at the performed were not. e Analysis
multicentre B. W. d start and according to Patients Controlling
trial (2015) Rotenberg, at the end an intention- were given for
M.D., of the trial to-treat squeeze Presence of
F.R.C.S.C., C. analysis bottle and Polyps were
J. Chin, M.D., nasal spray. computed
L. Rudmik, and
M.D., M.Sc., analyzed.
F.R.C.S.C.,
D. D.
Sommer,
M.D.,
F.R.C.S.C., S.
Nayan, M.D.,
M.
DesRosiers,
M.D.,
F.R.C.S.C.,
M. A. Tewfik,
M.D.C.M.,
M.Sc.,
F.R.C.S.C., C.
J. Valdes,
M.D., E.
Massoud,
M.B., M.Sc.,
F.R.C.S.C.,
D. Thomas,
M.D., M.Sc.,
S. J. Kilty,
M.D.,
F.R.C.S.C., A.
Vescan, M.D.,
F.R.C.S.C.,
B. Mechor,
M.D., M.Sc.,
F.R.C.S.C., F.
Lavigne,
M.D.,
F.R.C.S.C., M.
Fandino,
M.D., M.Sc.,
A. R. Javer,
M.D.,
F.R.C.S.C.,
and I. J.
Witterick,
M.D., M.Sc.,
F.R.C.S.C.