A prospective, single-blind, randomised, crossover study comparing three nasal hygiene systems and corresponding patient preference for such devices. Issue 1 (January 2014)
- Record Type:
- Journal Article
- Title:
- A prospective, single-blind, randomised, crossover study comparing three nasal hygiene systems and corresponding patient preference for such devices. Issue 1 (January 2014)
- Main Title:
- A prospective, single-blind, randomised, crossover study comparing three nasal hygiene systems and corresponding patient preference for such devices
- Authors:
- Elmiyeh, B
Heywood, R L
Prasad, V M N
Chatrath, P
Bassett, P
Quiney, R - Abstract:
- <abstract abstract-type="normal"> <title>Abstract</title> <sec id="sec1"> <title>Objective:</title> <p>To assess subjective preference using three nasal hygiene systems: Stérimar Original<sup>®</sup>, Emcur<sup>®</sup> and Sinus Rinse™.</p> </sec> <sec id="sec2"> <title>Design:</title> <p>We used a prospective, single-blind, randomised, crossover study to compare three nasal hygiene systems: Stérimar Original, Emcur and Sinus Rinse.</p> </sec> <sec id="sec3"> <title>Subjects:</title> <p>Eighteen adult volunteers were recruited and were asked to rate their experience over three days using three well-established nasal hygiene systems. A standard visual analogue scale was used to assess five criteria: (1) simplicity of instructions; (2) ease of use; (3) comfort; (4) perceived nasal clearance (effectiveness) and (5) single best overall system.</p> </sec> <sec id="sec4"> <title>Results:</title> <p>Stérimar Original was found to have the easiest instructions to understand compared to the other two systems. There was no significant difference between Stérimar Original and Sinus Rinse with regards to ease of use but they were both significantly easier to use than Emcur (<italic>p</italic> &lt; 0.05). There was no statistically significant difference between the three systems when comparing the last three criteria. There was no alteration in preference when the cost of each treatment was disclosed to the subjects, and no significant side effects were reported.</p> </sec> <sec<abstract abstract-type="normal"> <title>Abstract</title> <sec id="sec1"> <title>Objective:</title> <p>To assess subjective preference using three nasal hygiene systems: Stérimar Original<sup>®</sup>, Emcur<sup>®</sup> and Sinus Rinse™.</p> </sec> <sec id="sec2"> <title>Design:</title> <p>We used a prospective, single-blind, randomised, crossover study to compare three nasal hygiene systems: Stérimar Original, Emcur and Sinus Rinse.</p> </sec> <sec id="sec3"> <title>Subjects:</title> <p>Eighteen adult volunteers were recruited and were asked to rate their experience over three days using three well-established nasal hygiene systems. A standard visual analogue scale was used to assess five criteria: (1) simplicity of instructions; (2) ease of use; (3) comfort; (4) perceived nasal clearance (effectiveness) and (5) single best overall system.</p> </sec> <sec id="sec4"> <title>Results:</title> <p>Stérimar Original was found to have the easiest instructions to understand compared to the other two systems. There was no significant difference between Stérimar Original and Sinus Rinse with regards to ease of use but they were both significantly easier to use than Emcur (<italic>p</italic> &lt; 0.05). There was no statistically significant difference between the three systems when comparing the last three criteria. There was no alteration in preference when the cost of each treatment was disclosed to the subjects, and no significant side effects were reported.</p> </sec> <sec id="sec5"> <title>Conclusion:</title> <p>The instructions accompanying Stérimar Original appeared to be the easiest to understand, while Stérimar Original and Sinus Rinse were easier to use than Emcur.</p> </sec> </abstract> … (more)
- Is Part Of:
- Journal of laryngology & otology. Volume 128:Issue 1(2014)
- Journal:
- Journal of laryngology & otology
- Issue:
- Volume 128:Issue 1(2014)
- Issue Display:
- Volume 128, Issue 1 (2014)
- Year:
- 2014
- Volume:
- 128
- Issue:
- 1
- Issue Sort Value:
- 2014-0128-0001-0000
- Page Start:
- 73
- Page End:
- 77
- Publication Date:
- 2014-01
- Subjects:
- Otolaryngology -- Periodicals
617.51 - Journal URLs:
- http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayJournal?jid=JLO ↗
- DOI:
- 10.1017/S0022215113003368 ↗
- Languages:
- English
- ISSNs:
- 0022-2151
- Deposit Type:
- Legaldeposit
- View Content:
- Available online (eLD content is only available in our Reading Rooms) ↗
- Physical Locations:
- British Library HMNTS - ELD Digital store
- Ingest File:
- 3996.xml