ReviewCureus2025
Olopatadine vs. Rupatadine for Allergic Rhinitis: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials.
Review in Cureus, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- [A Randomized Controlled Clinical Trial of Acupuncture at the Sphenopalatine Ganglion for the Treatment of Allergic Rhinitis].Sichuan da xue xue bao. Yi xue ban = Journal of Sichuan University. Medical science edition · 2026Trial
- Effects of dry mouth lozenges on the surface morphology and color stability of restorative materials.Odontology · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of olopatadine and rupatadine in the treatment of allergic rhinitis (AR). By synthesizing data from randomized controlled trials (RCTs), this study aimed to evaluate symptom reduction, specifically in terms of the Total Nasal Symptom Score (TNSS), and assess the incidence of adverse effects between these two second-generation antihistamines. A comprehensive literature search was conducted in PubMed, Google Scholar, Web of Science, Embase, and Cochrane databases from November 2024 to February 2025. Studies were selected based on the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. Clinical trials comparing olopatadine and rupatadine in AR patients were included, with a focus on TNSS reduction and adverse event incidence. The Jadad scale was used for quality assessment. Data were analyzed using the DerSimonian and Laird random effects model, with mean differences and risk ratios (RR) calculated. Heterogeneity was assessed using the chi-square test and I² statistic. A total of four RCTs involving 304 patients (153 in the olopatadine group, 151 in the rupatadine group) met the inclusion criteria. Olopatadine demonstrated superior TNSS reduction (mean difference: 2.51; 95% CI: 1.58 to 3.44; p<0.0001), with low heterogeneity (I²=0%). Adverse events were comparable between groups (RR=0.66; 95% CI: 0.29-1.50; P=0.33), with dry mouth, headache, and mild sedation being the most frequently reported. Olopatadine showed greater efficacy in reducing symptoms of allergic rhinitis compared to rupatadine, while both drugs had similar safety profiles. These findings suggest that olopatadine may be preferred for more symptom relief, though larger trials are needed for further validation.
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.