Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 30Allergic Rhinitis and SensitizationAsthma and respiratory diseasesMast cells and histamine

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 38 of the 39 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

The Efficacy and Safety of Selective H1-Antihistamine versus Leukotriene Receptor Antagonist for Seasonal Allergic Rhinitis: A Meta-Analysis

Open access
Xu, Yu, Zhang, Jixiang, Wang, Jun·2014·PLoS ONE

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Both selective H1-antihistamine (SAH) and leukotriene receptor antagonist (LTRA) have been shown to be effective in treating patients with seasonal allergic rhinitis (SAR), but it is still uncertain which treatment option is optimal. This meta-analysis was aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of SAH and LTRA for SAR. MATERIALS AND METHODS: PubMed, EMBASE and the Cochrane Library were searched for all eligible studies that compared the efficacy and safety of SAH and LTRA for SAR up to September 7, 2014. The pooled mean difference (MD), odd ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (95% CIs) were calculated using a fixed- or random-effects model. RESULTS: Nine studies with 5781 SAR patients were included. The results showed that SAH is superior to LTRA in terms of the daytime eye symptoms score (DESS) and composite symptoms score (CSS) for SAR (MD = 0.06, 95% CI, 0.03 to 0.10, P = 0.000, I2 = 99%; MD = 0.03, 95% CI, 0.01 to 0.05, P = 0.010, I2 = 98%), whereas LTRA overmatched SAH with respect to the night-time symptoms score (NSS) (MD = -0.04, 95% CI, -0.05 to -0.02, P = 0.000, I2 = 97%). Additionally, the results of subgroup analysis indicated that the dose, duration and gender of the patients might impact the comparisons of the effects of SAH and LTRA on their efficacy for SAR. CONCLUSION: This meta-analysis suggested that SAH and LTRA have similar effects and safety for SAR, but SAH is more appropriate for daytime nasal symptoms (congestion, rhinorrhea, pruritus and sneezing), while LTRA is better suited for nighttime symptoms (difficulty going to sleep, nighttime awakenings, and nasal congestion on awakening), respectively. Meanwhile, the dose, duration and gender of patients may influence the anti-SAR effects of SAH and LTRA.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1371/journal.pone.0112815

Cites

38 of 38 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Figures

Figure 1 The screening process of studies.
Figure 1 The screening process of studies.CC BY · PubMed Central
Figure 2 Pooled Analysis for DNSS of leukotriene antagonist versus selective H1 antihistamine for Seasonal allergic rhinitis.
Figure 2 Pooled Analysis for DNSS of leukotriene antagonist versus selective H1 antihistamine for Seasonal allergic rhinitis.CC BY · PubMed Central
Figure 3 Pooled Analysis for CSS of leukotriene antagonist versus selective H1 antihistamine for Seasonal allergic rhinitis.
Figure 3 Pooled Analysis for CSS of leukotriene antagonist versus selective H1 antihistamine for Seasonal allergic rhinitis.CC BY · PubMed Central
Figure 4 Pooled Analysis for NSS of leukotriene antagonist versus selective H1 antihistamine for Seasonal allergic rhinitis.
Figure 4 Pooled Analysis for NSS of leukotriene antagonist versus selective H1 antihistamine for Seasonal allergic rhinitis.CC BY · PubMed Central

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 39 references

Cited by

See all 30

Metadata

Authors
Xu, Y., Zhang, J., & Wang, J.
Affiliations
Renmin Hospital of Wuhan University (CN)
Corresponding author
Xu, Yu
Venue
PLoS ONE
Published
2014-11-10
Volume
9
Issue
11
Pages
e112815
ISSN
1932-6203 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2058932654
Cited by
30
References
39
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 3 · 2022: 5 · 2021: 4 · 2020: 1 · 2019: 2 · 2018: 5 · 2017: 1 · 2016: 2 · 2015: 2
FWCI
0.22
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • PLoS ONE (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • RePEc: Research Papers in Economics (submittedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion)
  • Figshare (submittedVersion, cc-by)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Immunology and Allergy › Allergic Rhinitis and Sensitization
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Pulmonary and Respiratory Medicine › Asthma and respiratory diseases
  • Life Sciences › Immunology and Microbiology › Immunology › Mast cells and histamine
Keywords
allergic rhinitis, leukotriene receptor antagonists, antihistamine efficacy, drug safety, nocturnal symptoms, dose and duration effects, gender differences
MeSH terms
Adult, Dose-Response Relationship, Drug, Drug Administration Schedule, Female, Rhinitis, Allergic, Seasonal, Histamine H1 Antagonists, Humans, Male, Sex Factors, Databases, Bibliographic, Anti-Allergic Agents, Leukotriene Antagonists

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.