↓ Skip to main content

Canadian clinical practice guidelines for acute and chronic rhinosinusitis

Overview of attention for article published in Allergy, Asthma & Clinical Immunology, February 2011
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (86th percentile)

Mentioned by

policy
1 policy source
twitter
4 X users
patent
1 patent

Citations

dimensions_citation
157 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
370 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Canadian clinical practice guidelines for acute and chronic rhinosinusitis
Published in
Allergy, Asthma & Clinical Immunology, February 2011
DOI 10.1186/1710-1492-7-2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Martin Desrosiers, Gerald A Evans, Paul K Keith, Erin D Wright, Alan Kaplan, Jacques Bouchard, Anthony Ciavarella, Patrick W Doyle, Amin R Javer, Eric S Leith, Atreyi Mukherji, R Robert Schellenberg, Peter Small, Ian J Witterick

Abstract

This document provides healthcare practitioners with information regarding the management of acute rhinosinusitis (ARS) and chronic rhinosinusitis (CRS) to enable them to better meet the needs of this patient population. These guidelines describe controversies in the management of acute bacterial rhinosinusitis (ABRS) and include recommendations that take into account changes in the bacteriologic landscape. Recent guidelines in ABRS have been released by American and European groups as recently as 2007, but these are either limited in their coverage of the subject of CRS, do not follow an evidence-based strategy, or omit relevant stakeholders in guidelines development, and do not address the particulars of the Canadian healthcare environment.Advances in understanding the pathophysiology of CRS, along with the development of appropriate therapeutic strategies, have improved outcomes for patients with CRS. CRS now affects large numbers of patients globally and primary care practitioners are confronted by this disease on a daily basis. Although initially considered a chronic bacterial infection, CRS is now recognized as having multiple distinct components (eg, infection, inflammation), which have led to changes in therapeutic approaches (eg, increased use of corticosteroids). The role of bacteria in the persistence of chronic infections, and the roles of surgical and medical management are evolving. Although evidence is limited, guidance for managing patients with CRS would help practitioners less experienced in this area offer rational care. It is no longer reasonable to manage CRS as a prolonged version of ARS, but rather, specific therapeutic strategies adapted to pathogenesis must be developed and diffused.Guidelines must take into account all available evidence and incorporate these in an unbiased fashion into management recommendations based on the quality of evidence, therapeutic benefit, and risks incurred. This document is focused on readability rather than completeness, yet covers relevant information, offers summaries of areas where considerable evidence exists, and provides recommendations with an assessment of strength of the evidence base and degree of endorsement by the multidisciplinary expert group preparing the document.These guidelines have been copublished in both Allergy, Asthma & Clinical Immunology and the Journal of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 370 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 3 <1%
Canada 2 <1%
Ecuador 1 <1%
Belgium 1 <1%
India 1 <1%
Japan 1 <1%
Spain 1 <1%
Unknown 360 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 57 15%
Student > Master 54 15%
Researcher 39 11%
Other 35 9%
Student > Postgraduate 28 8%
Other 69 19%
Unknown 88 24%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 181 49%
Nursing and Health Professions 24 6%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 15 4%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 10 3%
Environmental Science 6 2%
Other 33 9%
Unknown 101 27%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 9. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 24 November 2022.
All research outputs
#3,798,945
of 25,374,917 outputs
Outputs from Allergy, Asthma & Clinical Immunology
#277
of 924 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#22,572
of 194,972 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Allergy, Asthma & Clinical Immunology
#1
of 1 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,917 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 83rd percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 924 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 13.8. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 69% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 194,972 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 86% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 1 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them