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