Skip to main content Accessibility help

A prospective, single-blind, randomised, crossover study comparing three nasal hygiene systems and corresponding patient preference for such devices

  • B Elmiyeh (a1), R L Heywood (a2), V M N Prasad (a3), P Chatrath (a1), P Bassett (a4) and R Quiney (a1)...



To assess subjective preference using three nasal hygiene systems: Stérimar Original®, Emcur® and Sinus Rinse™.


We used a prospective, single-blind, randomised, crossover study to compare three nasal hygiene systems: Stérimar Original, Emcur and Sinus Rinse.


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.


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 (p < 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.


The instructions accompanying Stérimar Original appeared to be the easiest to understand, while Stérimar Original and Sinus Rinse were easier to use than Emcur.


Corresponding author

Address for correspondence: Mr Behrad Elmiyeh, Charing Cross Hospital, Fulham Palace Road, London, W6 8RF, United Kingdom E-mail:


Hide All
1Harvey, R, Hannan, SA, Badia, L, Scadding, G. Nasal saline irrigations for the symptoms of chronic rhinosinusitis. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2007;(3):CD006394
2Papsin, B, McTavish, A. Saline nasal irrigation: its role as an adjunct treatment. Can Fam Physician 2003;49:168–73
3Tomooka, LT, Murphy, C, Davidson, TM. Clinical study and literature review of nasal irrigation. Laryngoscope 2000;110:1189–93
4Wormald, PJ, Cain, T, Oates, L, Hawke, L, Wong, I. A comparative study of three methods of nasal irrigation. Laryngoscope 2004;114:2224–7
5Hauptman, G, Ryan, MW. The effect of saline solutions on nasal patency and mucociliary clearance in rhinosinusitis patients. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2007;137:815–21
6Pynnonen, 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;133:1115–20
7Horne, R, Weinman, J, Barber, N, Elliott, R, Morgan, M, Cribb, A et al. Concordance, Adherence and Compliance in Medicine Taking. Report for the National Co-Ordinating Centre for NHS Service Delivery and Organisation R & D (NCCSDO). London: NCCSDO, 2005.
8Department of Health. Pharmacy in England. Building on Strengths – Delivering the Future. Norwich: The Stationery Office, 2008;1141
9Haynes, RB, Ackloo, E, Sahota, N, McDonald, HP, Yao, X. Interventions for enhancing medication adherence. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2008;(2):CD000011
10Horne, R. Compliance, adherence and concordance. In: Taylor, K, Harding, G, eds. Pharmacy Practice. London, New York: Taylor & Francis, 2001;165–84
11Sabaté, E. Adherence to Long-Term Therapies; Evidence for Action. Geneva: WHO, 2003



Altmetric attention score

Full text views

Total number of HTML views: 0
Total number of PDF views: 0 *
Loading metrics...

Abstract views

Total abstract views: 0 *
Loading metrics...

* Views captured on Cambridge Core between <date>. This data will be updated every 24 hours.

Usage data cannot currently be displayed