68 Chapter 2 Did the review authors account for RoB in individual studies when interpreting/ discussing the results of the review? For Yes: included only low risk of bias RCTs OR, if RCTs with moderate or high RoB, or NRSI were included the review provided a discussion of the likely impact of RoB on the results Yes No Did the review authors provide a satisfactory explanation for, and discussion of, any heterogeneity observed in the results of the review? For Yes: There was no significant heterogeneity in the results OR if heterogeneity was present the authors performed an investigation of sources of any heterogeneity in the results and discussed the impact of this on the results of the review Yes No If they performed quantitative synthesis did the review authors carry out an adequate investigation of publication bias (small study bias) and discuss its likely impact on the results of the review? For Yes: performed graphical or statistical tests for publication bias and discussed the likelihood and magnitude of impact of publication bias Yes No No meta-analysis conducted 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 Compalati, 2013 [6] Author Compalati Year of publication 2013 Journal Current Medical Research & Opinion Study design Systematic review Study population 10 double-blind placebo-controlled randomised controlled trials involving 2.418 children and adults with allergic rhinitis (persistent/intermittent, seasonal/perennial) Description of the intervention (including dosage and duration) Rupatidine 10 mg, Rupatidine 20 mg, Rupatidine oral solution 2,5-5 mg Description of control group Placebo Outcome measures Overall allergy symptoms score (sum of sneezing, rhinorrhea, itchy nose/palate, itchy/watery/red eyes, nasal congestion), total nasal symptoms, individual nasal and ocular symptoms, patient’s satisfaction, frequency of adverse events Effect on outcome measures (nasal / ocular symptoms, concentration, sleep problems, absenteeism from school / work, quality of life) Overall allergy symptoms score reduction: SMD: -0.37 (95%CI: -0.46 to -0.27) (8 studies, 1650 patients). Total nasal symptom reduction: SMD: -0.36 (95%CI: -0.48 to -0.25) (7 studies, 1178 patients). Rhinorrhea: SMD: -0.30 (95%CI: -0.41 to -0.19) (7 studies, 1282 patients). Sneezing: SMD: -0.39 (95%CI: -0.52 to -0.26) (6 studies, 932 patients). Nasal obstruction: SMD: -0.25 (95%CI: -0.37 to -0.13) (5 studies, 982 patients). Nasal itching: SMD: -0.21 (95%CI: -0.33 to -0.10) (6 studies, 1178 patients). Itchy eyes: SMD: -0.29 (95%CI: -0.45 to -0.14) (4 studies, 683 patients). Watery eyes: SMD: -0.25 (95%CI: -0.45 to -0.06) (2 studies, 399 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
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTk4NDMw