16 April 2009

Who Said Scientists Don't Have a Sense of Humor

The following is an abstract for a study done at the University of Michigan on the efficacy of nasal irrigation. The study concludes that nasal irrigation does work better than saline sprays.

But the really interesting bit is the test they use to determine symptom severity is called the 20-Item Sino-Nasal Outcome Test or better known as SNOT-20. I checked out the etymology of the word snot, to make sure it didn't actually derive from this acronym. Turns out that the word derives from the Old English word gesnot. So, cheers to the scientists/doctors who clearly love their jobs enough to create this funny and slightly disgusting acronym.

Department of Otolaryngology, University of Michigan Health System, 1904
Taubman Center, 1500 E Medical Center Drive, Ann Arbor, MI 48109-0312, USA.
pynnonen@umich.edu

OBJECTIVE: To determine if isotonic sodium chloride (hereinafter "saline") nasal irrigations performed with large volume and delivered with low positive pressure are more effective than saline sprays at improving quality of life and decreasing medication use. DESIGN: A prospective, randomized controlled trial. SETTING: Community. PARTICIPANTS: A total of 127 adults with chronic nasal and sinus symptoms. INTERVENTIONS: Patients were randomly assigned to irrigation performed with large volume and delivered with low positive pressure (n = 64) or spray (n = 63) for 8 weeks. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Change in symptom severity measured by mean 20-Item Sino-Nasal Outcome Test (SNOT-20) score; change in symptom frequency measured with a global question; and change in medication use. RESULTS: A total of 121 patients were evaluable. The irrigation group achieved lower SNOT-20 scores than the spray group at all 3 time points: 4.4 points lower at 2 weeks (P = .02); 8.2 points lower at 4 weeks (P < .001); and 6.4 points lower at 8 weeks (P = .002). When symptom frequency was analyzed, 40% of subjects in the irrigation group reported symptoms "often or always" at 8 weeks compared with 61% in the spray group (absolute risk reduction, 0.2; 95% confidence interval, 0.02-0.38 (P = .01). No significant differences in sinus medication use were seen between groups. CONCLUSION: Nasal irrigations performed with large volume and delivered with low positive pressure are more effective than saline sprays for treatment of chronic nasal and sinus symptoms in a community-based population.

UPDATE: An anonymous commenter indicates that I forgot the citation in my original post: Pynnonen MA, Mukerji SS, Kim HM, Adams ME, Terrell JE. "Nasal saline for chronic sinonasal symptoms: a randomized controlled trial." Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2007 Nov;133(11):1115-20.

1 comment:

  1. You are missing the citation: Pynnonen MA, Mukerji SS, Kim HM, Adams ME, Terrell JE. "Nasal saline for chronic sinonasal symptoms: a randomized controlled trial." Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2007 Nov;133(11):1115-20.

    ReplyDelete

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.