SynthesisFrontiers in pharmacology2026
Chinese herbal formulas as adjuncts to antihistamines in chronic spontaneous urticaria: a network meta-analysis of efficacy, recurrence, and safety.
Synthesis in Frontiers in pharmacology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Chronic spontaneous urticaria (CSU) presents treatment challenges despite second-generation antihistamines (sgAHs) serving as the first-line therapy. Purpose: The aim of this network meta-analysis is to systematically evaluate the efficacy hierarchy and safety profile of classical traditional Chinese medicine (TCM) formulas used as adjuncts to antihistamines. Methods: We systematically evaluated 50 randomized controlled trials involving 5,814 patients using both Bayesian and frequentist network meta-analyses (NMAs) to compare the efficacy, recurrence, and safety of sgAHs alone or in combination with classical TCM formulas. The primary outcome was clinical improvement based on the Symptom Score Reducing Index (SSRI), with secondary outcomes including recurrence rates and adverse events (AEs). Risk of bias was assessed using RoB 2.0, and evidence certainty was evaluated using the CINeMA framework. Bayesian and frequentist NMA approaches were employed. Sensitivity analyses were conducted based on the study quality and prescription modifications. Results: Most combination regimens of classical TCM formulas were superior to antihistamine monotherapy for both SSRI ≥90% and ≥60% outcomes. Combinations involving Conclusion: In CSU management, classical TCM formulas, particularly Systematic Review Registration: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO, identifier CRD420251022634.
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.