Applying GRADE for diagnosis 65 2 Did the review authors report any potential sources of conflict of interest, including any funding they received for conducting the review? For Yes: The authors reported no competing interests OR The authors described their funding sources and how they managed potential conflicts of interest Yes No Management – antihistamines Compalati, 2011 [5] Author Compalati Year of publication 2011 Journal Int Arch Allerg Immunol Study design Systematic review Study population 8 double-blind placebo-controlled randomised clinical trials including 3.532 participants with seasonal allergic rhinitis (children and adults) Description of the intervention (including dosage and duration) Fexofenadine in different dosages (30 mg b.i.d., 120 mg b.i.d., 120 mg o.d., 180 mg o.d.), 14 or 15 days Description of control group Placebo Outcome measures 12- or 24-hour reflective total symptom scores (TSS; sum of sneezing, rhinorrhea, itchy nose/palate, itchy/watery/red eyes, excluding nasal congestion), morning instantaneous TSS, reflective individual nasal symptom scores (rhinorrhea, sneezing, itching, nasal obstruction), adverse events. Effect on outcome measures (nasal / ocular symptoms, concentration, sleep problems, absenteeism from school / work, quality of life) 12-hour reflective total symptom score: SMD: -0.42 (95%CI: -0.51 to - 0.34) (5 studies, 2098 patients). 24-hour reflective total symptom score: SMD: -0.42 (95%CI: -0.49 to -0.35) (3 studies, 1434 patients). Sneezing: SMD: -0.37 (95%CI: -0.44 to -0.30) (7 studies, 3307 patients). Rhinorrhea: SMD: -0.24 (95%CI: -0.31 to -0.17) (7 studies, 3307 patients). Nasal congestion: SMD: -0.17 (95%CI: -0.24 tot -0.10) (7 studies, 3307 patients). Nasal itching: SMD: -0.27 (95%CI: -0.31 to - 0.24) (7 studies, 3307 patients) Risk of bias (AMSTAR-2) Did the research questions and inclusion criteria for the review include the components of PICO? For yes: Population Intervention Comparator group Outcome Optional (recommended) Timeframe for follow-up Yes No Did the report of the review contain an explicit statement that the review methods were established prior to the conduct of the review and did the report justify any significant deviations from the protocol For partial yes: The authors state that they had a written protocol or guide that included ALL the following: review question(s) a search strategy inclusion/exclusion criteria a risk of bias assessment For yes: As for partial yes, plus the protocol should be registered and should also have specified a meta-analysis/synthesis plan, if appropriate, and a plan for investigating causes of heterogeneity justification for any deviations from the protocol Yes Partial yes No
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTk4NDMw