Background/Objectives: This systematic review and meta-analysis evaluated the effectiveness of olfactory training (OT) using standardized protocols in patients with post-COVID-19 olfactory dysfunction. The objective was to assess whether OT, compared to no treatment, placebo, or alternative therapies, improved olfactory function as measured using validated smell tests, including UPSIT, Sniffin’ Sticks (TDI score), CCCRC, and B-SIT. Methods: A systematic search of PubMed, Web of Science, and Ovid Medline was conducted through February 2025 in accordance with PRISMA guidelines. Eight randomized controlled trials (RCTs) met the inclusion criteria. Data were extracted on study characteristics (author, year, country, design, sample size), population details (age, sex, post-COVID-19 cause), intervention type (training method, frequency, duration), comparators, outcome measures (baseline and post-intervention olfactory scores), follow-up duration, and reported adverse effects. The risk of bias was assessed using the Joanna Briggs Institute critical appraisal tool. Meta-analyses were performed using RevMan and Open Meta-Analyst. Results: Olfactory training significantly improved the olfactory scores compared to those of the controls. The greatest improvement was observed when OT was combined with PEA-luteolin (MD = 4.62, 95% CI: 2.17–7.06, p = 0.0002), followed by EDTA (MD = 2.33, 95% CI: 0.58–4.08, p = 0.009). Corticosteroids showed a borderline benefit (MD = 1.34, 95% CI: 0.01–2.67, p = 0.05), while alpha-lipoic acid had no significant effect. Combination therapies were associated with higher recovery rates (RR = 1.65, 95% CI: 1.13–2.42, p = 0.01). Conclusions: Olfactory training is an effective treatment for post-COVID-19 smell dysfunction. When paired with specific adjunct therapies, particularly PEA-luteolin, it may yield superior recovery outcomes. Further large-scale, standardized RCTs are needed to define optimal treatment protocols.

Background Rhinoplasty is frequently complicated by intraoperative bleeding and early postoperative edema/ecchymosis. Antifibrinolytic (tranexamic acid, TXA) and anti-inflammatory strategies are widely used, but their comparative effectiveness remains uncertain. We aimed to quantify the effects of TXA and systemic corticosteroids versus placebo and versus each other on bleeding, edema, ecchymosis, and surgeon satisfaction in rhinoplasty. Methods We registered a protocol (PROSPERO CRD420251170943) and searched PubMed/MEDLINE, Embase, Scopus, Web of Science, and Cochrane to 14 July 2025 without language limits. Adult rhinoplasty (± septoplasty) randomized trials comparing TXA or systemic corticosteroids with placebo or each other were included. Random-effects models produced mean differences (MD) with 95% CIs; heterogeneity was summarized with I². Predefined time windows prioritized the latest early postoperative assessment. Results Of 612 records, 18 RCTs (n = 600) met criteria. Versus placebo, TXA reduced bleeding (MD − 0.82, 95% CI − 0.91 to − 0.73; I²=0%), ecchymosis (MD − 0.79, − 0.88 to − 0.70; I²=0%), and edema (MD − 0.74, − 0.84 to − 0.65; I²=0%). Steroids similarly improved ecchymosis (MD − 0.86, − 0.98 to − 0.74; I²=0%) and edema (MD − 0.75, − 0.85 to − 0.64; I²=0%) and reduced bleeding (MD − 0.71, − 0.82 to − 0.61; I²=0%). In head-to-head analyses, TXA outperformed steroids for ecchymosis (MD − 0.35, − 0.51 to − 0.19; I²=0%) and edema (MD − 0.30, − 0.50 to − 0.11; I²=33%), and increased surgeon satisfaction (MD + 0.40, 0.21 to 0.60; I²=33%). Funnel plots were largely symmetrical for bleeding, ecchymosis, and edema. Risk of bias was generally low to moderate, with occasional unblinded outcome assessment. Conclusions Both TXA and systemic corticosteroids improve early recovery after rhinoplasty versus placebo; TXA shows a modest edge for soft-tissue outcomes and surgical-field quality. Standardized, blinded, factorial RCTs are needed to define optimal dosing, routes, and any additive effects. Level of Evidence Level I, risk / prognostic study.

Background: Migraine is a prevalent neurological disorder associated with significant morbidity and social burden. Although various triggers for migraine have been identified, the relationship between smoking and migraine remains unclear. This study aimed to compare migraine characteristics between people with and without smoking in Saudi Arabia. Methods: A cross-sectional study using an online survey tool had been conducted in Saudi Arabia. The survey assessed migraine characteristics, smoking behaviour, demographics, and comorbidities. Statistical analyzes were performed to investigate the occurrence of migraine, smoking behaviour, and demographic factors. Descriptive statistics summarized the data, with various statistical tests employed to compare variables between groups. Results: A total of 229 participants were included in the study, with a majority being young adults (48.47%), predominantly females (66.81%), and holding a bachelor’s degree (63.32%). The study found that 19.2% of individuals with migraine were current smokers, with an average smoking duration of 9.7 years. While some reported relief from migraine pain, others experienced increased pain intensity or frequency. No significant differences were found in migraine characteristics between smokers and non-smokers, but younger individuals and males with migraine were more likely to smoke. The study highlights the complex relationship between smoking and migraine, with varying effects on individuals. Conclusions: The study underscores the lack of significant differences in migraine characteristics between smokers and non-smokers, suggesting that smoking does not play a pivotal role in the clinical presentation of migraines. This insight prompts a shift in research focus towards other potential contributors to migraines, such as genetic predispositions, environmental factors, and comorbidities. Understanding these associations can inform public health strategies aimed at alleviating migraine-related burdens.