Search for a command to run...
We read with interest the recent systematic review by Delgado Rendon et al. [1], “In-Office Steroid Injections for Idiopathic Subglottic Stenosis: A Systematic Review”. The authors are to be commended for addressing an important and evolving area in the management of idiopathic subglottic stenosis (iSGS). We would like to offer a clarification regarding the completeness of the evidence synthesized in the review. Specifically, while the authors' search strategy identified our recently published prospective cohort study evaluating serial intralesional steroid injections (ILSIs) in patients with iSGS (Ying et al. [2]), the patient cohort and study findings were not incorporated into the results or narrative synthesis presented. Our study represents one of the larger prospective cohorts examining the association between ILSIs and disease recurrence in iSGS. Using both time-to-first-event and recurrent-event Cox proportional hazards models, we evaluated the effect of ILSIs on recurrence risk while accounting for relevant clinical covariates. We observed a statistically significant association between ILSI use and reduced recurrence risk, along with a clinically meaningful prolongation of surgery-free interval. These outcomes align closely with the primary endpoints emphasized in the systematic review, including recurrence and surgery-free interval, and therefore appear directly relevant to its stated objectives. Given the rarity of iSGS and the limited number of prospective studies available, inclusion of all eligible cohorts is particularly important to ensure that systematic reviews accurately reflect the scope and direction of the existing evidence. Omission of eligible data may inadvertently influence the interpretation of treatment efficacy, especially in fields where conclusions are necessarily drawn from relatively small and heterogeneous datasets. We raise this point to support ongoing efforts toward comprehensive and transparent evidence synthesis in iSGS. Inclusion of all qualifying studies, particularly those with prospective design and larger sample sizes, may help strengthen future reviews and better inform clinical decision-making as well as the design of subsequent studies. We commend the authors for their contribution to this evolving literature and appreciate the opportunity for scholarly dialogue on this topic. The author has nothing to report. The author declares no conflicts of interest. Data sharing not applicable to this article as no datasets were generated or analyzed during the current study.