Systematic review and Meta analysis of randomized controlled trials for the treatment of anaphylactic rhinitis

Objective: Evaluate the efficacy and safety of needling for allergic rhinitis (AR) using a comprehensive method of evidence-based medical systems. Methods Retrieves CNKI, VIP, Wanfang, PubMed, and Cochrane Library databases, retroactively related conference papers, degree papers, and complements references in the retrieval literature, paper roundup section. Time ends November 2015. A randomized controlled trial that collects mere acupuncture or acupuncture combination associated adjuvant therapy/positive drug versus positive (or false acupunction/blank control/placebo) to treat AR. Consolidated literature with less clinical heterogeneity uses RevMan5.2 for meta analysis and otherwise qualitative analysis. The results were included in 30 literature, a total of 2602 AR patients, combined with a total of 11 literature for Meta analysis. The results showed that the acupuncture group was significantly more effective than the acupuncture group; and the acupuncture group was significantly more effective than the acupuncture group. The results of the qualitative analysis showed that needle-based therapies (or other adjuvant therapies) outperformed or equaled the efficacy of the control group in improving the effectiveness of nasal symptoms in AR patients. Limitations: Inclusion of only Chinese and English literature due to language restrictions may result in selection bias in the retrieval of literature; easier publication of positive results may lead to potential publication bias in the included literature. Conclusion Related adjuvant therapies such as acupuncture or acupuncture combined acupuncture may have some effect on the improvement of nasal symptoms in AR patients; acupuncture or acupuncture combined acupuncture may have some forward efficacy for the improvement of nasal symptoms in AR patients; the safety of acupuncture is not currently possible.