Skip to main content

Table 4 Summary of GRADE

From: Potential effectiveness of Chinese herbal medicine Yu ping feng san for adult allergic rhinitis: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

Quality assessment

Number of patients

Effect

Quality

Importance

Number of studies

Study design

Risk of bias

Inconsistency

Indirectness

Imprecision

Other conside-rations

YPFS or its combi-nation

Pharmaco-therapy

Relative (95% CI)

Absolute (95% CI)

Effective rate: YPFS vs Antihistamine for Adult Allergic Rhinitis

7 [17–23]

Randomiz-ed trials

seriousa

seriousb

not serious

not serious

none

229/308(74.4%)

234/305 (76.7%)

RR 1.04 (0.90 to 1.19)

29 more per 1000 (from75 fewer to 141 more)

LOW

NOT IMPORTANT

Score of Itchy nose: YPFS + Antihistamine vs Antihistamine for Adult Allergic Rhinitis

4 [29, 32,34,35]

Randomiz-ed trials

seriousa

not serious

not serious

seriousc

none

209

209

MD −0.46(−0.50 to −0.42)

0.46 fewer (0.5 fewer to 0.42 fewer)

LOW

IMPORTANT

Score of sneezing: YPFS + Antihistamine vs Antihistamine for Adult Allergic Rhinitis

4 [29,32,34, 35]

Randomiz-ed trials

seriousa

seriousb

not serious

not serious

none

209

209

MD −0.41 (−0.47 to −0.35)

0.41 fewer (0.47 fewer to 0.35 fewer)

LOW

IMPORTANT

Score of blocked nose: YPFS +Antihistamine vs Antihistamine for Adult Allergic Rhinitis

4 [29, 32,34,35]

Randomiz-ed trials

seriousa

seriousb

not serious

not serious

none

209

209

MD −0.46(−0.54 to −0.39)

0.46 fewer (0.54 fewer to 0.39 fewer)

LOW

IMPORTANT

Score of runny nose: YPFS +Antihistamine vs Antihistamine for Adult Allergic Rhinitis

3 [29, 32, 35]

Randomiz-ed trials

seriousa

seriousb

not serious

not serious

none

209

209

MD −0.42(−0.58 to −0.26)

0.42 fewer (0.58 fewer to 0.26 fewer)

LOW

IMPORTANT

Effective rate: YPFS +Antihistamine vs Antihistamine for Adult Allergic Rhinitis

8 [23,24, 28–30,32, 34,35]

Randomiz-ed trials

seriousa

not serious

not serious

not serious

none

338/369 (91.6%)

257/358 (71.8%)

RR 1.28 (1.19 to 1.37)

201 more per 1000 (from 136 more to 265 more)

LOW

NOT IMPORTANT

  1. Abbreviations: YPFS Yu ping feng san, CI confidence interval, RR risk ratio, MD mean difference
  2. Note: aLacking of blinding, randomisation and allocation concealment are unclear. bSubstantial heterogeneity. cSmall sample size