76 Chapter 2 Nasal stuffiness/congestion: SMD: -0.41 (95%CI: -0.56 to -0.27) (7 studies, 1582 patients); significant heterogeneity. Rhinorrhoea: SMD: - 0.44 (95%CI: -0.66 to -0.21) (7 studies, 1582 patients); significant heterogeneity. Sneezing: SMD: -0.40 (95%CI: -0.57 to 0.23) (7 studies, 1582 patients); significant heterogeneity. Nasal itching: SMD: -0.39 (95%CI: -0.53 to -0.25) (7 studies, 1582 patients). Non-nasal symptom scores: SMD: -0.30 (95%CI: -0.43 to -0.18) (4 studies, 1009 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 Did the review authors explain their selection of the study designs for inclusion in the review? For yes, the review should satisfy ONE of the following: Explanation for including only RCTs OR Explanation for including only NRSI OR Explanation for including both RCTs and NRSI Yes No Did the review authors use a comprehensive literature search strategy? For partial yes (all the following): searched at least 2 databases (relevant to research question) provided key word and/or search strategy justified publication restrictions (e.g. language) For yes, should also have (all the following): searched the reference lists/bibliographies of included studies searched trial/study registries included/consulted content experts in the field where relevant, searched for grey literature conducted search within 24 months of completion of the review Yes Partial yes No Did the review authors perform study selection in duplicate? For yes, either one of the following: at least two reviewers independently agreed on selection of eligible studies and achieved consensus on which studies to include OR two reviewers selected a sample of eligible studies and achieved good agreement (at least 80%), with the remainder selected by one reviewer
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTk4NDMw