SynthesisFrontiers in medicine2026
Second-generation H1 antihistamines for the treatment of chronic urticaria: a network meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Frontiers in medicine, 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
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of 10 commonly used second-generation H1 antihistamines (cetirizine, levocetirizine, loratadine, desloratadine, ebastine, bilastine, olopatadine, rupatadine, fexofenadine, and mizolastine) at licensed doses in treating chronic urticaria using network meta-analysis. Methods: Seven electronic databases were searched, including PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), Wanfang Data Knowledge Service Platform, and Chinese Biomedical Literature Service System. Relevant literature from inception to the end of December 2025 was retrieved. Studies meeting the criteria were selected, and network meta-analysis was performed using Stata 16 software. Results: A total of 54 studies involving 7,290 patients were included. Network meta-analysis indicated that olopatadine, mizolastine, bilastine, and levocetirizine were more effective than placebo in improving total symptom scores. All 10 drugs were superior to placebo in reducing itching scores, although only fexofenadine achieved statistical significance. For reducing wheal scores, ebastine was significantly more effective than mizolastine and loratadine. Regarding adverse reactions, no significant differences were observed between any of the drugs and placebo, with fexofenadine having the lowest adverse reaction rate. Sensitivity analyses excluding highrisk studies confirmed the robustness of findings across all outcomes. Conclusion: Based on current evidence, olopatadine at licensed dose exhibited the best efficacy in reducing total symptom scores. Fexofenadine was most effective for improving itching scores and ebastine was optimal for reducing wheal scores. In addition, fexofenadine had the lowest incidence of adverse reactions. However, the conclusions of this study still need to be validated by further high-quality randomized controlled trials.
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.