Oral Second-Generation H1-Antihistamine Regimens for Allergic Rhinitis: Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis of Effects and Estimability
Abstract
Background/Objectives: Comparative effects of oral second-generation H1-antihistamines vary by rhinitis category, outcome, and treatment period. We assessed evidence structure, estimability, and differentiation among regimens. Methods: PubMed, Embase, Web of Science Core Collection, CENTRAL, WHO ICTRP, ClinicalTrials.gov, and the EU Clinical Trials Register were searched on 1-3 July 2026 for records through 30 June 2026. Eligible studies were natural-exposure randomized trials. Continuous outcomes were analyzed using covariance-aware generalized least squares, and binary harms were analyzed using Bayesian arm-level models. RoB 2, CINeMA, and ROB-MEN were applied in duplicate. Registration was retrospective. Results: Sixty-one reports generated 66 report-randomization entries from 64 cohorts (34,831 participants); 35 model-ready randomizations informed nine structures. In seasonal allergic rhinitis, six of seven TNSS estimates, two of three ocular estimates, and four RQLQ estimates favored active treatment. Any-adverse-event estimates were imprecise. Under the primary prior, cetirizine yielded a WDAE OR of 0.25 (95% CrI 0.08-0.66), but predictive classification was prior-sensitive. Of 34 continuous active-active comparisons, seven were directly informed and 27 indirect-only. All 147 estimable binary active-active contrasts were reported as secondary derivations: 141 CrIs included one and six excluded one, all indirect-only and not formally appraised with CINeMA. Six of 14…
How strong is the evidence?
Evidence Hub reads this as a meta-analysis, done in people. Its evidence level is 1 of 5 (Highest · pooled evidence). Pooled evidence from several studies sits at the top of the evidence pyramid. Reported size: 34,831 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.