ArticleMultidisciplinary respiratory medicine2024
Inter-societal Delphi Consensus on the topical nasal treatments in Italy.
Article in Multidisciplinary respiratory medicine, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- The Evaluation initiative: management of rhinitis by Italian otorhinolaryngologists.Multidisciplinary respiratory medicine · 2026Article
- Multidisciplinary Delphi Consensus on the Clinical Use of Intranasal Carboxymethyl-β-Glucan-Resveratrol: Evidence-Based Recommendations for Upper Airway Diseases.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Article
- Site-Specific Microparticle Inhalation Therapy: A New Approach to Nasopharyngeal Symptoms.Pharmaceuticals (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- A multidisciplinary Delphi consensus on budesonide aqueous nasal spray in managing upper respiratory diseases.Multidisciplinary respiratory medicine · 2025Article
- Inter-societal Survey on the topical nasal treatments in Italy.Multidisciplinary respiratory medicine · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Topical nasal therapy is widely used in clinical practice by different specialists. However, it is multifaceted and still controversial. Namely, there is no consensus about the many aspects, and there needs to be specific guidelines. Four independent experts involved 14 Italian scientific societies (concerning ENT, allergy, and pediatrics areas) to participate in generating an Intersocietal Delphi Consensus on this matter. Three iterative rounds collected experts (4 in the first round, 20 in the second round, and 45 in the third round) designed by the scientific societies based on their clinical expertise and documented scientific value. Thirty-four statements were discussed and voted on. At the second round, all statements accomplished a very high consensus grade (>95%). At the third round, many statements reached a high or very high grade of consensus (>70%). However, some statements did not obtain sufficient agreement. Consequently, there is a need to implement knowledge about this issue through educational initiatives and new studies conducted with a robust methodology. In conclusion, topical nasal therapy deserves adequate knowledge as it is widespread and fruitful in managing upper respiratory diseases.
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.