4.5 Article

Oral antihistamines for the symptom of nasal obstruction in persistent allergic rhinitis - a systematic review of randomized controlled trials

期刊

CLINICAL AND EXPERIMENTAL ALLERGY
卷 35, 期 2, 页码 207-212

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2222.2005.02159.x

关键词

meta-analysis; nasal obstruction; oral antihistamines; persistent allergic rhinitis; randomized controlled trial; symptom score; systematic review

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background Oral antihistamines are recommended by a World Health Organisation working group as a first-line pharmacological treatment in mild persistent allergic rhinitis. There is, however, uncertainty with respect to their effectiveness for a common symptom, that of nasal obstruction. Objective To test the null hypothesis that oral antihistamines have no effect on the symptom of nasal obstruction in a clinical setting in patients with persistent allergic rhinitis. Methods Protocol based review of double-blind randomized controlled trials of oral antihistamine (i.e. drugs considered to act as a histamine receptor type-1 antagonist) vs. placebo. A search was carried out for published and unpublished trials. Individuals had to be age 12 years or older (with a diagnosis confirmed by skin prick tests, IgE blood tests or nasal allergen challenge), experiencing their normal allergen exposure. A symptom score for nasal obstruction had to be recorded. Predetermined quality criteria were applied. Treating their data as 4-point scores, a meta-analysis was carried out for studies, which provided enough data to be pooled. Results Meta-analysis found a weighted mean difference of -0.52 in favour of treatment for patient-assessed symptom scores (95% confidence interval (CI)-0.73,-0.31, P<0.00001), and of -0.33 in favour of treatment for healthcare worker assessed scores (95% CI -0.49, -0.16, P=0.0001). Conclusion Oral antihistamines cause statistically significant improvement in the symptom of nasal obstruction in patients with persistent allergic rhinitis.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据