Protocol for the systematic reviews on the desirable and undesirable effects of pharmacological treatments of allergic rhinitis informing the ARIA 2024 guidelines
Abstract
There is insufficient evidence regarding the comparative efficacy and safety of pharmacological treatments of allergic rhinitis (AR). In the context of informing the 2024 revision of the Allergic Rhinitis and its Impact on Asthma (ARIA) guidelines, we plan to perform three systematic reviews of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing the desirable and undesirable effects (i) between intranasal and oral medications for AR; (ii) between combinations of intranasal and oral medications versus nasal or oral medications alone; and (iii) among different intranasal specific medications. We will search four electronic bibliographic databases and three clinical trials databases for RCTs examining patients ≥ 12 years old with seasonal or perennial AR. Assessed outcomes will include the Total Nasal Symptom Score, the Total Ocular Symptom Score, and the Rhinoconjunctivitis Quality-of-Life Questionnaire. We will assess the methodological quality of included primary studies by using the Cochrane risk-of-bias tool. If appropriate, we will perform a pairwise random-effects meta-analysis for each pair of assessed medication classes and outcomes, as well as a network meta-analysis to assess the comparative efficacy of intranasal medications among each other. Heterogeneity will be explored by sensitivity and subgroup analyses. This set of systematic reviews will allow for a comprehensive assessment of the effectiveness and safety of pharmacological interventions for AR and inform…
How strong is the evidence?
Evidence Hub reads this as a systematic review, 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.
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.