Journal of Research in Ayurvedic Sciences

Register      Login

VOLUME 3 , ISSUE 4 ( October-December, 2019 ) > List of Articles

PROTOCOL

A Systematic Review Protocol for Assessing Efficacy and Safety of Ayurveda Medicine in Treatment of Allergic Rhinitis

Parth P Dave, Azeem Ahmad, Manohar S Gundeti

Keywords : Ayurveda, Systematic review protocol,Allergic rhinitis

Citation Information : Dave PP, Ahmad A, Gundeti MS. A Systematic Review Protocol for Assessing Efficacy and Safety of Ayurveda Medicine in Treatment of Allergic Rhinitis. J Res Ayurvedic Sci 2019; 3 (4):125-129.

DOI: 10.5005/jras-10064-0089

License: CC BY-NC 4.0

Published Online: 00-12-2019

Copyright Statement:  Copyright © 2019; Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers (P) Ltd.


Abstract

Introduction: A systematic review is planned to investigate the safety and efficacy of Ayurveda interventions for allergic rhinitis (AR) through analyzing published and unpublished clinical research. Materials and methods: A systematic review of published clinical work or Ayurveda interventions for AR will be conducted. PubMed, AYUSH Research Portal, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), hand searches, snowballing of studies will also be performed to fetch complete available literature. Manual search includes Ayurveda postgraduate (PG) and doctor of philosophy (PhD) dissertations on the management of AR. The selection of the studies, data extraction, and synthesis will be performed independently by researchers, and a third reviewer will seek disagreements. Established guidelines for study selection, quality assessment, and narrative synthesis will be followed. Risk of bias assessment will be performed with the help of Cochrane risk-of-bias tool for randomized trials (RoB2) tool for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and risk of bias tool to assess nonrandomized studies of interventions (ROBINS-I) tool for non-RCTs (NRCTs). Results of the study will be narratively synthesized and presented in count, percentage, and frequency. As this will be the first systematic review on this topic, outlining the protocol ensures transparency for the completed review. Patients will not be involved in any phase of the study; however, ethical approval has been received from the Institutional Ethics Committee (IEC). Dissemination: The review is ongoing, and after completion, it will be published in a peer-reviewed journal. The study will be updated to inform and guide healthcare practice and policy. Trial registration number: PROSPERO 2018 CRD42018107035.


PDF Share
  1. World Health Organization [Internet]. Global surveillance, prevention and control of Chronic Respiratory Diseases: a comprehensive approach 2007. Available at: https://www.who.int/gard/publications/GARD%20Book%202007.pdf [Last accessed on 18/01/2019, 18:00].
  2. Varshney J, Varshney H. Allergic rhinitis: an overview. Indian J Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2015;67(2):143–149. DOI: 10.1007/s12070-015-0828-5.
  3. Dhingra PL. Diseases of Ear, Nose and Throat. 4th ed., New Delhi: Elsevier; 2013.
  4. Hellings PW, Fokkens WJ, Akdis C, et al. Uncontrolled allergic rhinitis and chronic rhinosinusitis: where do we stand today? Allergy 2013;68(1):1–7. DOI: 10.1111/all.12040.
  5. Choudhary K, Borah T, Bharali BK, et al. Managing allergic rhinitis in children through Ayurvedic herbal medicines. Int J Pharm Sci Res 2017;8(12):5012–5021. DOI: 10.13040/IJPSR.0975-8232.8(12).5012-21.
  6. Kalaskar S, Nishteswar K. PA01.80. the review of herbal anti-allergy and anti-histaminic drugs. Ancient Sci Life 2012;32(5):130. DOI: 10.4103/0257-7941.112138.
  7. Gundeti MS, Dedge A, Dave P, et al. Ayurveda and plant-based interventions for cancer management: a systematic review. J Drug Res Ayurvedic Sci 2017;2(2):64–80. DOI: 10.5005/jp-journals-10059-0009.
  8. Guo R, Pittler MH, Ernst E. Herbal medicines for the treatment of allergic rhinitis: a systematic review. Ann Allergy Asthma Immunol 2007;99(6):483–495. DOI: 10.1016/S1081-1206(10)60375-4.
  9. Moher D, Shamseer L, Clarke M, et al. Preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta-analysis protocols (PRISMA-P) 2015 statement. Syst Rev 2015;4(1):1. DOI: 10.1186/2046-4053-4-1.
  10. Higgins JPT, Thomas J, Chandler J, et al. Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. 2nd ed., Chichester (UK): John Wiley & Sons; 2019.
  11. Schulz KF, Altman DG, Moher D. CONSORT 2010 statement: updated guidelines for reporting parallel group randomised trials. BMJ 2010;340:c332. DOI: 10.1136/bmj.c332.
  12. Popay J, Roberts H, Sowden A, et al. Guidance on the conduct of narrative synthesis in systematic reviews: a product of the ESRC methods programme (version I). Lancaster, UK: University of Lancaster; 2006.
  13. Sterne JA, Hernán MA, Reeves BC, et al. ROBINS-I: a tool for assessing risk of bias in non-randomised studies of interventions. BMJ 2016;355:i4919. DOI: 10.1136/bmj.i4919.
  14. Deeks JJ, Higgins JPT, Altman DG. Chapter 9: analysing data and undertaking meta-analyses. In: Higgins JPT, Green S. Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions, Version 5.1.0 (updated March 2011). The Cochrane Collaboration 2011.
  15. Egger M, Smith GD, Schneider M, et al. Bias in meta-analysis detected by a simple, graphical test. BMJ 1997;315(7109):629–634. DOI: 10.1136/bmj.315.7109.629.
  16. Sterne JAC, Egger M, Moher D. Chapter 10: addressing reporting biases. In: Higgins JPT, Green S. Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions, Version 5.1.0 (updated March 2011). The Cochrane Collaboration 2011 http://www.cochrane-handbook.org.
PDF Share