↓ Skip to main content

Mometasone furoate nasal spray: a systematic review

Overview of attention for article published in Multidisciplinary Respiratory Medicine, May 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Among the highest-scoring outputs from this source (#25 of 310)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (90th percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (62nd percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
policy
2 policy sources
twitter
3 X users
wikipedia
4 Wikipedia pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
45 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
129 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
Mometasone furoate nasal spray: a systematic review
Published in
Multidisciplinary Respiratory Medicine, May 2016
DOI 10.1186/s40248-016-0054-3
Pubmed ID
Authors

Desiderio Passali, Maria Carla Spinosi, Anna Crisanti, Luisa Maria Bellussi

Abstract

The inflammatory diseases of the nose, rhino-pharynx and paranasal sinuses (allergic and non allergic rhinitis, NARES; rhinosinusitis with/without nasal polyposis, adenoidal hypertrophy with/without middle ear involvement) clinically manifest themselves with symptoms and complications severely affecting quality of life and health care expenditure. Intranasal administration of corticosteroids, being fast, simple, and not requiring cooperation, is the preferred way to treat the patients, to optimize their quality of life, at the same time minimizing the risk of exacerbations and complications. Among the different topical steroids available on the market, we performed a comparative analysis in terms of effectiveness and safety between mometasone furoate (MF) and its main competitors. Searching through Pub Med and Google Scholar and using as entries "mometasone furoate", "rhinitis", "sinusitis", "asthma", "polyposis", "otitis media with effusion", and "adenoid hypertrophy" we found 344 articles, 300 of which met the eligibility criteria. Taking into account relevance and date of publication, a sample of 40 articles was considered for the review. MF effectiveness for treatment and/or prophylaxis of nasal symptoms in seasonal and perennial allergic rhinitis has been fully established with a level of evidence Ia. Even though it has not been assessed for MF in particular, topical steroids are the most appropriate treatment in mixed rhinitis and NARES. In acute rhinosinusitis (ARS) evidences support their use as mono-therapy or as adjuvant to antibiotics for reducing the recurrence rate, and decrease the usage of related prescriptions and medical consultations. In chronic rhinosinusitis (CRS) with Nasal polyposis, MF reduces polyps size, nasal congestion, improves quality of life and sense of smell and it is also effective in the treatment of daytime cough. The topical use of MF has great efficacy in the management of adenoidal hypertrophy and otitis media of atopic children. As regards the safety, MF has demonstrated an excellent safety profile: pregnant women can safely use it; no systemic effects on growth velocity and adrenal suppression have been shown; no changes in epithelial thickness or atrophy have been observed after long term administration of the drug. Conclusions: MF has been demonstrated to be effective in the treatment of the inflammatory diseases of the nose and paranasal sinuses; when compared to its competitors it shows a greater symptom control; it is a reliable treatment in the long term thanks not only to its proven efficacy, but also to its safety being on the market since more than 17 years.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 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 129 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 129 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 16 12%
Student > Ph. D. Student 14 11%
Researcher 14 11%
Other 11 9%
Student > Master 11 9%
Other 23 18%
Unknown 40 31%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 48 37%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 14 11%
Nursing and Health Professions 4 3%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 4 3%
Computer Science 3 2%
Other 17 13%
Unknown 39 30%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 21. 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 01 December 2023.
All research outputs
#1,830,228
of 25,822,778 outputs
Outputs from Multidisciplinary Respiratory Medicine
#25
of 310 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#29,108
of 313,156 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Multidisciplinary Respiratory Medicine
#3
of 8 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,822,778 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 92nd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 310 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 11.4. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 91% 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 313,156 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 90% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 8 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 5 of them.