ArticleMedicine2020
Effectiveness and safety of different traditional Chinese medicine therapies for allergic rhinitis: A protocol for systematic review and network meta analysis.
Article in Medicine, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Pooled it
- Integration of bioinformatics analysis, molecular docking and animal experiments to study the therapeutic mechanisms of berberine against allergic rhinitis.Scientific reports · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionTraditional Chinese medicine has been widely used in the treatment of allergic rhinitis. However, currently randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and meta-analysis only compare 1 or 2 types of traditional Chinese medicine therapies, and the comprehensive ranking of efficacy and safety of multiple traditional Chinese medicine therapies for the treatment of allergic rhinitis has not been completed. Therefore, the purpose of this network meta-analysis is to evaluate the efficacy and safety of different traditional Chinese medicine therapies for the treatment of allergic rhinitis. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: Three English databases of PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, and 2 Chinese databases of CNKI and Wanfang were searched from their inceptions to September 1, 2020. At the same time, in order to prevent omissions, we also compared the previous meta-analysis to determine the final included trials. The main evaluation outcome was the total Clinical Score (total nasal symptom score [TNSS]), the secondary evaluation outcome was the Rhinoconjunctivitis Quality of Life Questionnaire (RQLQ) and adverse events. The Cochrane Collaboration's Tool was used to evaluate the methodological quality of articles, the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) instrument was used to evaluate the quality of evidence. Network meta-analysis was completed by using Stata Statistical Software (Version 14.0, Stata Corporation, College Station, TX).
resultsThis study will compare and rank the different traditional Chinese medicine therapies for allergic rhinitis.
conclusionThis study is the first time to use network meta-analysis (NMA) to compare the efficacy and safety of traditional Chinese medicine for the treatment of allergic rhinitis, which will provide ideas and methods for the clinical treatment for allergic rhinitis. INPLASY REGISTRATION NUMBER: No. INPLASY202080119.
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.