Evidence Hub

Indirect moxibustion for the treatment of allergic rhinitis: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

Ting Yuan, Jun Xiong, Xue Wang, Jun Yang, Yunfeng Jiang, Xiaohong Zhou, Kai Liao, Lingling Xu

Complementary Therapies in Medicine, 2022

1,549 participants · 5 citations

Abstract

Objective To synthesize the results of randomized clinical trials (RCTs) and evaluate the effectiveness and safety of indirect moxibustion for the treatment of allergic rhinitis (AR). Methods PubMed, the Cochrane Library, Embase, Web of Science, CNKI, WanFang, VIP, and CBM from the establishment to May 22, 2020 were searched. This was a PRISMA review. Reviewers identified studies, extracted data, and assessed the quality, independently. RCTs for AR patients treated with IM alone or IM combined with other positive interventions (e.g. western medicine, conventional therapy, etc.) were included. The main outcomes included: total effective rate and TNSS. The secondary outcomes included: TNNSS, Graded symptom score, RQLQ, VAS, Serum IgE level and adverse events. RCTs were collected, methodological quality was evaluated using the Cochrane risk-of-bias assessment tool (RoB), and the level of evidence was rated using the GRADE approach. Meta-analysis was performed using the RevMan5.3.0 manager. Results We included 21 RCTs involving 1549 patients. Five RCTs adopt IM treatment alone; 16 RCTs adopt IM+other positive interventions. In the assessment of the quality, the evidence differs from low to high based on the Cochrane Bias Evaluation Tools. Six trials were high quality, twelve were moderate quality, and three were low quality. Therefore, the quality of the included studies was moderate. The total evidence quality of all outcome indicators was low. The main adverse reactions of…

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: 1,549 participants or records.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

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.

Open this study Sign up free