↓ Skip to main content

Topical Colloidal Silver for the Treatment of Recalcitrant Chronic Rhinosinusitis

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Microbiology, April 2018
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 (82nd percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (85th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
15 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
21 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
51 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
Topical Colloidal Silver for the Treatment of Recalcitrant Chronic Rhinosinusitis
Published in
Frontiers in Microbiology, April 2018
DOI 10.3389/fmicb.2018.00720
Pubmed ID
Authors

Mian L. Ooi, Katharina Richter, Catherine Bennett, Luis Macias-Valle, Sarah Vreugde, Alkis J. Psaltis, Peter-John Wormald

Abstract

Background: The management of recalcitrant chronic rhinosinusitis (CRS) is challenged by difficult-to-treat polymicrobial biofilms and multidrug resistant bacteria. This has led to the search for broad-spectrum non-antibiotic antimicrobial therapies. Colloidal silver (CS) has significant antibiofilm activity in vitro and in vivo against S. aureus, MRSA, and P. aeruginosa. However, due to the lack of scientific efficacy, it is only currently used as an alternative medicine. This is the first study looking at the safety and efficacy of CS in recalcitrant CRS. Methods: Patients were included when they had previously undergone endoscopic sinus surgery and presented with signs and symptoms of sinus infection with positive bacterial cultures. Twenty-two patients completed the study. Patients were allocated to 10-14 days of culture directed oral antibiotics with twice daily saline rinses (n = 11) or 10 days of twice daily 0.015 mg/mL CS rinses (n = 11). Safety observations included pre- and post-treatment serum silver levels, University of Pennsylvania Smell Identification Test (UPSIT) and adverse event (AE) reporting. Efficacy was assessed comparing microbiology results, Lund Kennedy Scores (LKS) and symptom scores using Visual Analog Scale (VAS) and Sino-Nasal Outcome Test (SNOT-22). Results: CS demonstrated good safety profile with no major adverse events, no changes in UPSIT and transient serum silver level changes in 4 patients. CS patients had 1/11 (9.09%) negative cultures, compared to 2/11 (18.18%) in the control group upon completion of the study. Whilst not statistically significant, both groups showed similar improvement in symptoms and endoscopic scores. Conclusion: This study concludes that twice daily CS (0.015 mg/mL) sinonasal rinses for 10 days is safe but not superior to culture-directed oral antibiotics. Further studies including more patients and looking at longer treatment or improving the tonicity of the solution for better tolerability should be explored.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 15 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
As of 1 July 2024, you may notice a temporary increase in the numbers of X profiles with Unknown location. Click here to learn more.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 51 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 51 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 8 16%
Student > Master 7 14%
Student > Postgraduate 5 10%
Student > Ph. D. Student 4 8%
Other 3 6%
Other 9 18%
Unknown 15 29%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 16 31%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 4 8%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 4 8%
Immunology and Microbiology 2 4%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 4%
Other 7 14%
Unknown 16 31%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 12. 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 11 March 2020.
All research outputs
#3,207,150
of 26,583,927 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Microbiology
#2,612
of 30,410 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#61,238
of 347,642 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Microbiology
#85
of 584 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 26,583,927 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 87th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 30,410 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.5. 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 347,642 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 82% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 584 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 85% of its contemporaries.