In this randomized controlled study of 871 patients, researchers found a slight improvement (44.1% for users of nasal irrigation vs. 36.6% for those using another treatment method) based on a measurement of clinical and self-reported symptoms from patients with sinus infections who were given instructions in how to use a salt solution to wash the inside of their nostrils.
Patient volunteers in the study were assigned to one of four groups: those receiving a nasal irrigation solution, steam, a combination of steam and nasal irrigation and “usual care” which referred to medications or referral, at the discretion of the physician. The study found that after six months there was a very modest decrease among nasal irrigation users in the use of over-the-counter medications (59.4% v. 68.0%) and those intending to seek medical consultation for symptom relief in the future.
The release uses careful language throughout and doesn’t over-sell the benefits. But the release is lacking on data that would quantify the benefits as well as information on cost and harms.
This matters because chronic sinus infections are a reason millions of people may be prescribed antibiotics, even though such medicines often do not help the symptoms. Reducing the use of antibiotics could help the world avoid the growth of resistant bacteria — which are a big threat. This study about alternatives of nasal irrigation (washing with salt solution) or inhaling steam is aimed at proving that people can feel better without as frequent of doctor visits and without antibiotics — which often are not effective and contribute to the resistance problem. But the study itself showed such modest improvement for patients that it didn’t contribute greatly to this desired outcome.
The release does not mention cost. Normal saline can easily be made at home or purchased from a local pharmacy. The cost is low in both cases and it should have been mentioned in the story especially in contrast to the cost of antibiotics.
The benefits information was pretty spare. We would have liked some numbers — rather than simply this sentence:
“Patients who were instructed to use nasal irrigation showed improvement at 3 and 6 months, as measured by the Rhinosinusitis Disability Index. Steam inhalation did not appear to alleviate symptoms of sinusitis.”
How much improvement? Is there a percentage or absolute number that could have been included?
According to the published study, “By 6 months, significantly more patients maintained a 10-point clinically important improvement in the RSDI score with nasal irrigation (44.1% v. 36.6%); fewer used over-the-counter medications (59.4% v. 68.0%) or intended to consult a doctor in future episodes.”
There is no mention of harms. While considered to be safe, there are risks to nasal irrigation that include a potential failure to seek appropriate medical attention as well as infection, headache and nosebleed, according this consumer fact sheet by the FDA.
The release makes clear that this was a randomized controlled trial of about 871 patients who were followed for six months. We think this helps the reader judge the quality of the evidence.
This release does not make any comment on the study funders. According to the UK clinical trial registry, the study was sponsored by the University of Southampton (UK).
The release talks about alternatives for sinus infections ranging from doctor visits and potential prescriptions to at-home use of nasal irrigation or steam inhalation.
Nasal irrigation and steam are both widely available.
The release does not make a claim for the novelty of this trial. However, the study itself states it is “one of few studies to address the effectiveness of brief advice to use nasal irrigation” and “the largest trial in any setting.” Both of those facts belonged in the release.
There is no unjustifiable language. We would quibble with the use of the word “prevention” in the title, however. This research did nothing to study preventing sinus infections. It studied improving symptoms.
Systematic, Criteria-Driven
Monday at #ADA2021, an infectious disease epidemiologist, a journalist, and a researcher shared perspectives on communication of risk in the era of COVID-19: http://ow.ly/ROfR30rMeE7 @AstleyCM @garyschwitzer @berthahidalgo @ADA_DiabetesPro
Shoutouts to @susan_bewley @drkevinknopf @MichaelBaum11 in this call for more than fawning coverage from press releases for these kinds of stories.
Also, linked history inside goes back 5 years just on Grail apparently trying to become Holy Grail. https://twitter.com/garyschwitzer/status/1408849696416841731
Comments
Please note, comments are no longer published through this website. All previously made comments are still archived and available for viewing through select posts.
Our Comments Policy
But before leaving a comment, please review these notes about our policy.
You are responsible for any comments you leave on this site.
This site is primarily a forum for discussion about the quality (or lack thereof) in journalism or other media messages (advertising, marketing, public relations, medical journals, etc.) It is not intended to be a forum for definitive discussions about medicine or science.
We will delete comments that include personal attacks, unfounded allegations, unverified claims, product pitches, profanity or any from anyone who does not list a full name and a functioning email address. We will also end any thread of repetitive comments. We don”t give medical advice so we won”t respond to questions asking for it.
We don”t have sufficient staffing to contact each commenter who left such a message. If you have a question about why your comment was edited or removed, you can email us at feedback@healthnewsreview.org.
There has been a recent burst of attention to troubles with many comments left on science and science news/communication websites. Read “Online science comments: trolls, trash and treasure.”
The authors of the Retraction Watch comments policy urge commenters:
We”re also concerned about anonymous comments. We ask that all commenters leave their full name and provide an actual email address in case we feel we need to contact them. We may delete any comment left by someone who does not leave their name and a legitimate email address.
And, as noted, product pitches of any sort – pushing treatments, tests, products, procedures, physicians, medical centers, books, websites – are likely to be deleted. We don”t accept advertising on this site and are not going to give it away free.
The ability to leave comments expires after a certain period of time. So you may find that you’re unable to leave a comment on an article that is more than a few months old.
You might also like