Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36378042›Full record

SynthesisJournal of traditional Chinese medicine = Chung i tsa chih ying wen pan2022

Efficacy and safety of acupoint application for allergic rhinitis: a systematic review and Meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

Shen Mengxia, Shang Wenfang, W U Jiangxia, Y U Zelin, Xuan Lihua

Open access · greenAbstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Journal of traditional Chinese medicine = Chung i tsa chih ying wen pan, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
1.5field-weighted citation impact, top 50% 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. Article
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

5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Shen MengxiaThe First School of Clinical Medicine of Zhejiang Chinese Medical University, Hangzhou 310053, China.
Shang WenfangThe First School of Clinical Medicine of Zhejiang Chinese Medical University, Hangzhou 310053, China.
W U JiangxiaThe First School of Clinical Medicine of Zhejiang Chinese Medical University, Hangzhou 310053, China.
Y U ZelinThe First School of Clinical Medicine of Zhejiang Chinese Medical University, Hangzhou 310053, China.
Xuan LihuaDepartment of acupuncture and moxibustion, the First Affiliated Hospital of Zhejiang Chinese Medical University, Hangzhou 310006, China.
Zhejiang Chinese Medical University · CN

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveTo use evidence-based medicine to explore the efficacy of acupoint application (AA) for allergic rhinitis (AR) at different time points and its safety.

methodsWe searched 7 databases (PubMed, Cochrane, Embase, China National Knowledge Infrastructure, Wanfang Database, China Science and Technology Journal Database, and China Biology Medicine disc) as well as the international clinical trial registration platform from January 2010 to March 2020 for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing the efficacy of AA versus placebo, Western Medicine or other alternative therapies on AR. Risk of bias was assessed according to the Cochrane handbook, and statistical analysis was performed using RevMan 5.3. Outcomes included the total effective rate, recurrence rate, total nasal symptom score (TNSS), visual analogue scale (VAS), quality of life measured by the Rhinitis Quality of Life Questionnaire (RQLQ) or Short Form-36 (SF-36), adverse events, and biomarkers including immunoglobulin E (IgE), peripheral blood eosinophil count (EOS), interleukin-4 (IL-4), and interferon gamma (INF-γ).

resultsTwenty-eight RCTs involving 3282 participants were included. The short-term and long-term efficacy of AA was significantly better than placebo, including better total effective rate [: 3.05, 95% (1.84, 5.07), after treatment; : 9.29, 95% (2.57, 33.66), at 6 months], lower recurrence rate [: 0.55, 95% (0.45, 0.66), at 6 months; : 0.65, 95% (0.57, 0.74), at 1 year], lower TNSS [: -3.09, 95% (-3.58, -2.61), after treatment], and lower RQLQ [: -14.79, 95% (-21.49, -8.10), after treatment; : -11.92, 95% (-17.40, -6.45), at 4-6 months]. Compared with Western Medicine, AA had better long-term total effective rate [: 1.33, 95%CI (1.05, 1.69), at 3 months; : 1.49, 95% 1.22 to 1.81, at 1 year) and lower recurrence rate [: 0.48, 95% (0.39, 0.58), at 6 months; : 0.45, 95% (0.33, 0.60), at 1 year]. AA had better long-term total effective rate versus acupuncture [: 2.06, 95% (1.28, 3.31), at 1 year] or oral Chinese medicine [: 1.21, 95% (1.09, 1.34), ≥ 6 months]. Both AA and Western Medicine can reduce serum levels of IgE, EOS, and IL-4 after treatment. The main adverse event of AA was local skin reaction without systemic side effects.

conclusionsThe short-term (within one month) and long-term (at 3 months, 6 months and 1 year) efficacy of acupoint application on AR was better than that of placebo. The long-term efficacy of acupoint application was superior to that of Western Medicine (at 3 months, 6 months and 1 year), oral Chinese medicine (at more than 6 months) and acupuncture (at 1 year). AA can reduce serum IgE, EOS, and IL-4 level of AR patients in a short run. Acupoint application is safe, but severe skin reactions can reduce patient compliance.

Indexed as

Acupuncture PointsRhinitis, AllergicHumansImmunoglobulin EInterleukin-4Randomized Controlled Trials as TopicImmunoglobulin EInterleukin-4acupoint applicationMeta-analysisrandomized controlled trialrhinitis, allergicsystematic review

Identifiers

PMID36378042
PMCPMC9924800
OpenAlexW4309368493

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.