SynthesisFrontiers in pharmacology2024
Meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials assessing the efficacy of
Synthesis in Frontiers in pharmacology, 2024. 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.
- P2 Receptors as Therapeutic Targets in Allergic Rhinitis: Insights From the Use of Natural Products and Preclinical Studies.Journal of immunology research · 2026Review
- Dietary Interventions, Supplements, and Plant-Derived Compounds for Adjunct Vitiligo Management: A Review of the Literature.Nutrients · 2025Review
- Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Demonstrating the positive effects of Purpose: To carry out a meta-analysis of clinical trials that used Study Design: A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) was performed. Methods: Various databases, including PubMed, Web of Science, Embase, Science Direct, Springer Link and the Cochrane Library, were searched until October 2023 to obtain RCTs assessing impact of Results: There were 8 studies enrolled, and our meta-analysis findings revealed that, relative to the control group, observation group exhibited the markedly increased total effective rate for allergic rhinitis treatment (odds ratio [OR] = 4.24, 95% confidence interval [CI] (2.57, 7.27), and Conclusion: The observation group demonstrated relative safety and had an enhanced effect on allergic rhinitis treatment and total nasal symptom improvement than the control group. The inclusion of fewer studies and the lower quality of trial design might affect the stability of the results. However, the evidence-based findings that
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.