ArticleJournal of pharmacology & pharmacotherapeutics
Comparison of efficacy, safety, and cost-effectiveness of rupatadine and olopatadine in patients of allergic rhinitis: A prospective, randomized, double-blind, parallel group study.
Article in Journal of pharmacology & pharmacotherapeutics. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Olopatadine vs. Rupatadine for Allergic Rhinitis: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials.Cureus · 2025Review
- Expression of serum miR-135a in patients with allergic rhinitis and its relationship with Treg/Th17 balance.The Kaohsiung journal of medical sciences · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo compare the efficacy, safety, and cost-effectiveness of rupatadine and olopatadine in patients of allergic rhinitis (AR). MATERIALS AND
methodsA 2-week, single-centered, randomized, double-blind, parallel group comparative clinical study was conducted on patients with AR. Following inclusion and exclusion criteria, 67 patients were recruited and randomized to two treatment groups and received the respective drugs for 2 weeks. At follow-up, parameters assessed were total nasal symptom score (TNSS), change in total and differential count of eosinophil.
resultsIn olopatadine group, there was a significantly higher reduction in TNSS (
conclusionOlopatadine is a better choice in AR in comparison to rupatadine due to its better efficacy and safety profile.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.