Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38603736›Full record

SynthesisPloS one2024

Medicinal plants for allergic rhinitis: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

Xin Yi Lim, Mei Siu Lau, Nor Azlina Zolkifli, Umi Rubiah Sastu Zakaria, Nur Salsabeela Mohd Rahim, Nai Ming Lai, Terence Yew Chin Tan

Open access · goldAbstract readSystematic ReviewMeta-Analysis
In one paragraph

Synthesis in PloS one, 2024. 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
3.8field-weighted citation impact, top 6% 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, 10 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  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

7 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Xin Yi LimHerbal Medicine Research Centre, Institute for Medical Research, National Institutes of Health, Ministry of Health, Setia Alam, Malaysia.ORCID 0000-0002-2615-3166
Mei Siu LauHerbal Medicine Research Centre, Institute for Medical Research, National Institutes of Health, Ministry of Health, Setia Alam, Malaysia.ORCID 0000-0001-5890-2099
Nor Azlina ZolkifliHerbal Medicine Research Centre, Institute for Medical Research, National Institutes of Health, Ministry of Health, Setia Alam, Malaysia.
Umi Rubiah Sastu ZakariaHerbal Medicine Research Centre, Institute for Medical Research, National Institutes of Health, Ministry of Health, Setia Alam, Malaysia.
Nur Salsabeela Mohd RahimHerbal Medicine Research Centre, Institute for Medical Research, National Institutes of Health, Ministry of Health, Setia Alam, Malaysia.
Nai Ming LaiSchool of Medicine, Taylor's University, Subang Jaya, Malaysia.ORCID 0000-0002-4204-3098
Terence Yew Chin TanHerbal Medicine Research Centre, Institute for Medical Research, National Institutes of Health, Ministry of Health, Setia Alam, Malaysia.
Ministry of Health · MYMonash University Malaysia · MY

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Herbal medicine is popularly used among patients who suffer from allergic rhinitis. This systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted to evaluate the efficacy and safety of single medicinal plants in the management of allergic rhinitis. We searched MEDLINE, CENTRAL, and Web of Science for randomised controlled trials which evaluated the use of single medicinal plant for allergic rhinitis among adults and children. Twenty-nine randomised controlled trials (n = 1879) were eligible while 27 (n = 1769) contributed data for meta-analyses. Most studies (studies = 20) compared medicinal plants against placebo and Petasites hybridus was most frequently investigated (studies = 5). Very-low-to-low-certainty evidence suggests that compared to placebo, single medicinal plants may improve overall total nasal symptoms (SMD -0.31, 95% CI -0.59 to -0.02; participants = 249; studies = 5; I2 = 21%) especially nasal congestion and sneezing; and rhinoconjunctivitis quality of life (RQLQ) scores (MD -0.46, 95% CI -0.84 to -0.07; participants = 148; studies = 3; I2 = 0%). Moderate-certainty evidence show no clear differences between single medicinal plants and antihistamine in overall symptoms (Total nasal symptoms: SMD -0.14, 95% CI -0.46 to 0.18; participants = 149; studies = 2; I2 = 0%). As adjunctive therapy, moderate-certainty evidence shows that medicinal plants improved SNOT-22 scores when given as intranasal treatment (MD -7.47, 95% CI -10.75 to -4.18; participants = 124; studies = 2; I2 = 21%). Risk of bias domains were low or not clearly reported in most studies while heterogeneity was substantial in most pooled outcomes. Route of administration and age were identified to be plausible source of heterogeneity for certain outcomes. Medicinal plants appear to be well tolerated up to 8 weeks of use. Clear beneficial evidence of medicinal plants for allergic rhinitis is still lacking. There is a need for improved reporting of herbal trials to allow for critical assessment of the effects of each individual medicinal plant preparation in well-designed future clinical studies.

Indexed as

Plants, MedicinalRhinitis, AllergicHumansPhytotherapyQuality of LifeRandomized Controlled Trials as Topic

Identifiers

PMID38603736
PMCPMC11008904
OpenAlexW4394710908

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.