A Pilot, Open, Monocenter, Randomized Two Parallel Groups, Clinical Efficacy Trial: Comparison Continuous Versus on Demand Regimen of Treatment With Levocetirizine 5 mg Oral Tablets, Once a Day, in Adults Suffering From Persistent Allergic Rhinitis (PER) Over 6 Months
Abstract
Comparison of clinical efficacy and safety of levocetirizine in PER continuous versus on demand, measured by evolution of individual symptom scores during 6 months.
Conditions: Rhinitis, Allergic, Perennial.
Primary outcome: Mean Weekly Total 4 Symptom Score (T4SS) During the Treatment Period.
Enrollment: 62 participants.
How strong is the evidence?
Evidence Hub reads this as a randomized trial, done in people. Its evidence level is 2 of 5 (High · randomized trial). Randomized trials of a reasonable size are the strongest single-study design. Reported size: 62 participants or records.
Read the paper
Related studies
- Artificial Intelligence in Medicine: Cross-Sectional Study Among Medical Students on Application, Education, and Ethical Aspects
- Information quality of videos related to esophageal cancer on tiktok, kwai, and bilibili: a cross-sectional study
- The quality and reliability of short videos about hypertension on TikTok: a cross-sectional study
- Quality and reliability evaluation of pancreatic cancer-related video content on social short video platforms: a cross-sectional study
- Quality and reliability of pediatric pneumonia related short videos on mainstream platforms: cross-sectional study
- Association between metabolic score for insulin resistance (METS-IR) and hypertension: a cross-sectional study based on NHANES 2007–2018
Go deeper in Evidence Hub
Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.