ArticleClinical and translational allergy2025
Prednisolone versus antihistamine for allergic rhinitis: No significant difference found in randomized trial.
Article in Clinical and translational allergy, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Prednisolone versus antihistamine for allergic rhinitis: No significant difference found in randomized trial.Clinical and translational allergy · 2025Article
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
Abstract
backgroundSeasonal allergic rhinitis (AR) impacts public health by affecting work productivity and quality of life. The Swedish tree pollen season starts in February with alder and hazel pollination, followed by birch and ends with oak in May. Systemic corticosteroids are often prescribed when topical treatments fail, despite limited evidence supporting their efficacy.
objectiveTo compare the effectiveness of prednisolone tablets versus antihistamine tablets in reducing symptoms and medication usage in patients with moderate to severe tree pollen-induced AR.
methodsThis interventional single-center, double-blinded randomized trial included 34 patients. Treatment was initiated, and symptoms were registered during the tree pollen season. The two groups received either prednisolone tablets (20 mg) or ebastine tablets (20 mg) for 7 days. Treatment effects were evaluated by comparing daily symptom scores, use of topical medication, and a combined symptom-medical score between the groups. Quality of life was recorded at the start and after 3 weeks.
resultsBoth interventions demonstrated efficacy in enhancing quality of life metrics. The area under the curve (AUC) for the combined symptom severity and medication usage score averaged 34.0 (SD = 19.1, 95% CI = 24.5-43.4) in the group treated with prednisolone. This was marginally lower than the control group, with an AUC of 32.6 (SD = 13.2, 95% CI = 25.6-39.7). The difference was not statistically significant (p = 0.80). Both groups exhibited only mild adverse events, which were statistically comparable in frequency and severity.
conclusionsPrednisolone tablets did not show superior efficacy over antihistamine tablets in reducing symptoms or medication usage in tree pollen-induced AR. These results suggest that systemic corticosteroids may not provide additional benefits over antihistamines, and clinicians should prioritize individualized treatment based on patient preferences and tolerability.
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.