Evaluation of the efficacy and safety of Chinese medicine Cang-Er-Zi-San in the treatment of allergic rhinitis in children: A meta-analysis and systematic review

Abstract

Background: More and more studies have shown that Chinese medicine can effectively and safely treat allergic rhinitis (AR) in children. This meta-analysis aims to compare the efficacy and safety differences between conventional therapy and the Chinese herbal medicine Cang-Er-Zi-San (CEZS) from an evidence-based perspective, and guide the clinical treatment of pediatric AR.

Methods: This study aims to compare the effects of intervention with traditional Chinese medicine formula CEZS on the clinical symptoms of pediatric AR, determine the effectiveness and safety of CEZS in treating pediatric AR, and obtain high-quality clinical evidence. Research method: based on the preferred reporting item (PRISMA) statement of systematic review and meta-analysis, inclusion and exclusion criteria were established. Retrieve 7 mainstream medical databases to obtain randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of traditional Chinese medicine CEZS for the treatment of pediatric AR. Include RCTs that meet research requirements. Then extract the data information and evaluate the quality using the Cochrane bias risk assessment tool. Meta-analysis was conducted using RevMan software on the effective rate, clinical symptom relief time, recurrence rate, and adverse event indicators. Calculate relative risk (RR) and 95% confidence interval (95% CI), test heterogeneity identify its source, evaluate publication bias through funnel plots.

Results: 15 RCTs and 1361 patients were included. The results of meta-analysis showed that the efficacy of Chinese herbal compound CEZS in the treatment of children with AR was significantly superior to other therapies. Effective rate (RR = 1.21; 95% CI = 1.15, 1.26) The difference was statistically significant, and the symptom relief time, Recurrence rate, adverse event, the time of symptom relief in the treatment group were all better than those in the control group. It is suggested that CEZS therapy is more suitable for the clinical treatment of children with AR.

Conclusion: CEZS has a definite therapeutic effect on children with AR and is an effective method for treating it. However, due to biased results and limited research, a large number of high-quality studies are needed to validate the effectiveness of CEZS and provide new treatments for clinical reference.