SynthesisPharmaceutical biology2026
Ginger-based formulations for allergic rhinitis disease: a systematic review and meta-analysis of experimental studies in animals and humans.
Synthesis in Pharmaceutical biology, 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundAllergic rhinitis is a chronic non-communicable disease that adversely affects respiratory health and quality of life. Ginger-based formulations, owing to their anti-inflammatory and immunomodulatory properties, may offer a promising alternative therapeutic option.
objectiveTo systematically review and meta-analyze evidence from animal studies and human randomized controlled trials assessing the efficacy of ginger-based formulations in allergic rhinitis.
methodsA systematic search of the Cochrane Library, Embase, PubMed, and Scopus (April 2025) identified studies comparing ginger-based formulations with control interventions. Outcomes included clinical symptoms and relevant biomarkers. Risk of bias was assessed using the SYRCLE tool for animal studies and RoB2 for human studies. Meta-analyses were conducted using random-effects models, with results expressed as standardized mean difference (SMD) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs).
resultsTwenty-one studies (6 animal and 15 human studies) were included. In rodents, ginger-based formulations significantly reduced nasal rubbing (SMD = -1.99; 95%CI, -3.15 to -0.83), sneezing (SMD = -1.99; 95%CI, -2.78 to -1.20), and biomarkers (IL-4, IL-5, and OVA-specific IgE). In humans, ginger-based formulations significantly improved itching (SMD = -0.51; 95%CI, -0.79 to -0.24), runny nose (SMD = -0.59; 95%CI, -0.87 to -0.30), sneezing (SMD = -0.56; 95%CI, -0.75 to -0.37), total nasal symptom scores (SMD = -0.63; 95%CI, -1.00 to -0.26), and quality of life (SMD = -0.56; 95%CI, -0.87 to -0.24), and eosinophil levels.
conclusionGinger-based formulations improve symptoms and biomarkers of allergic rhinitis in both animal and human studies. As many interventions are multi-component, the observed effects are more appropriately attributed to the overall formulations rather than ginger alone. Further research is needed to explore mechanisms and clarify clinical applications.
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.