ArticleMedicine2018
Okbyungpoongsan (Yupingfeng) for treating allergic rhinitis: A protocol for the systematic review of controlled trials.
Article in Medicine, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Psychological Disorders of Patients With Allergic Rhinitis in Chengdu, China: Exploratory Research.JMIR formative research · 2022Article
- Effects of Yu-ping-feng granules combined with loratadine tablets on treatment efficacy and immune factor levels in allergic rhinitis patients.American journal of translational research · 2021Article
- Acupuncture as an add-on therapy to sublingual allergen-specific immunotherapy for patients with allergic rhinitis.Medicine · 2019Observational
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundOkbyungpoongsan (OBPS) is widely used as a treatment for allergic rhinitis (AR) in Far East countries. Many clinical trials have assessed the efficacy and safety of the OBPS formula for treating AR. Here, we systematically will review the clinical evidence for and against administration of OBPS. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: All RCTs of decoctions or modified decoctions will be included. The methodological quality of the RCTs will be analyzed using the Cochrane Collaboration tool for assessing risk of bias, while confidence in the cumulative evidence will be evaluated using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) instrument. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: This systematic review will be published in a peer-reviewed journal and will also be disseminated electronically and in print. The review will be updated to provide additional information and guide healthcare practices.Registration number: CRD42017080292.
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.