ArticleAnnals of medicine and surgery (2012)2026
Efficacy and safety of rupatadine in allergic rhinitis: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.
Article in Annals of medicine and surgery (2012), 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
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Rupatadine, a dual H1-histamine and platelet-activating factor antagonist, has shown promise in allergic rhinitis (AR), but its overall efficacy and safety remain variably reported. This systematic review aimed to evaluate the therapeutic effectiveness and tolerability of rupatadine in adults with seasonal and perennial AR. Methods: Following PRISMA guidelines, PubMed, Embase, Cochrane CENTRAL, and ClinicalTrials.gov were searched from inception to April 2025 for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing rupatadine with placebo after registration on PROSPERO (CRD42025065190). Data on nasal symptom reduction, quality of life, and adverse events were pooled using a random-effects model, expressed as standardized mean differences (SMD) with 95% confidence intervals. Risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane RoB-2 tool. Results: Eight RCTs comprising 2442 participants were included. Rupatadine significantly reduced total nasal symptom scores (SMD = -1.36; Conclusion: Rupatadine is an effective, well-tolerated therapy for AR, providing significant relief from key nasal symptoms, particularly at higher doses. Although quality-of-life benefits were modest, the findings support rupatadine's role as a safe and potent antihistamine option, warranting further long-term and real-world evaluation.
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.