Evidence map›Paper›PMID 18370556›Full record

ArticleClinical drug investigation1998

Efficacy and tolerability comparison of ebastine 10 and 20mg with loratadine 10mg: a double-blind, randomised study in patients with perennial allergic rhinitis.

R J Davies, European Multicentre Study Group

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Clinical drug investigation, 1998. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
0.5field-weighted citation impact, top 45% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

7 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 23 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

R J DaviesThe London Chest Hospital, London, England.
European Multicentre Study Group
London Chest Hospital · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveTo compare the dose-related efficacy and tolerability of the oral H(1) antihistamine ebastine (10 or 20mg) with a reference drug, loratadine (10mg), in the once-daily treatment of perennial allergic rhinitis (PAR). PATIENTS AND

methodsThe trial was conducted in 317 patients (aged 12 to 68 years) with ongoing symptoms of PAR. Mean 24-hour diary card symptom severity scores (0-3) were compared as changes from baseline between the randomised, double-blind treatment groups over a 4-week period.

resultsSymptom scores, including both 'perennial index' (PIN = sneezing + nasal itching + discharge) and total 'nasal index' (TNI = PIN + nasal stuffiness) showed statistically significantly greater improvements with ebastine 10 or 20mg than with loratadine 10mg for all parameters except sneezing, itching and ocular symptoms. The mean TNI scores were reduced by 44, 47 and 32%, respectively, over 4 weeks, and treatment differences were apparent from week 1 onwards. Patient and physician final opinions (percentage of patients improved) were also significantly in favour of ebastine (79 to 85%) vs loratadine (65 to 66%). The treatments were equally well tolerated and no serious adverse events occurred.

conclusionThis study found ebastine 10 or 20mg to be more effective than loratadine 10mg for the treatment of PAR.

Identifiers

PMID18370556
OpenAlexW189697417

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.