SYSTEMATIC REVIEW article
Front. Pharmacol.
Sec. Ethnopharmacology
Efficacy of different nasal irrigation treatments versus placebo in allergic rhinitis: a systematic review and network meta-analysis
Provisionally accepted- 1Department of Otolaryngology, Jiaxing University Master Degree Cultivation Base, Zhejiang Chinese Medical University, Hangzhou, China
- 2Department of Otolaryngology, The First Hospital of Jiaxing, Jiaxing, China
Select one of your emails
You have multiple emails registered with Frontiers:
Notify me on publication
Please enter your email address:
If you already have an account, please login
You don't have a Frontiers account ? You can register here
Purpose: Allergic rhinitis(AR) is a globally prevalent disease, and nasal irrigation is one of its effective treatments. This study aims to compare the efficacy and effectiveness of different nasal irrigation treatments on AR patients' nasal symptoms and quality of life(QoL). Methods: Studies on AR patients using different nasal irrigation treatments were searched from Cochrane, Embase, Pubmed, Web of Science, China National Knowledge Infrastructure(CNKI), VIP Database, and China Biology Medicine disc(CBM) up to 29 March 2025. The quality of the included studies was independently assessed using the NIH quality evaluation tool. The primary outcomes included relevant scale scores from the Total Nasal Symptom Score(TNSS), and secondary outcomes included those from the Rhinoconjuctivitis Quality of Life Questionnaire (RQLQ). Random-effects or fixed-effects models were selected for network meta-analysis, and mean difference (MD) was calculated with a 95% credibility interval(CrI). Surface under the cumulative ranking curve(SUCRA) was employed to rank various interventions. R 4.4.1 was used for statistical analysis. Results: 23 studies involving 3584 patients were identified. The results of the network meta-analysis showed that compared with the placebo, multiple nasal irrigating agents were more significantly efficacious and effective. In terms of alleviating nasal symptoms (a lower score indicated better effectiveness), resveratrol was the most efficacious [MD: −7.7, 95% CrI(−14.0, −1.1)] (SUCRA = 92.08%), and budesonide also showed significant efficacy and effectiveness [MD: −5.6, 95% CrI(−10.0, −0.99)] (SUCRA = 83.39%). In terms of improving QoL (a lower score indicated better efficacy), cinnamon bark was the most efficacious [MD:−1.3, 95% CrI(−1.6, −0.96)]( SUCRA = 95.78%). In addition, hydrogen-rich water [MD: −1.2, 95% CrI (−2.4, 0.10)]( SUCRA = 82.58%) and fluticasone [MD: −0.83, 95% CrI(−0.94, −0.71)]( SUCRA = 81.49%) also showed significant differences from the placebo. Conclusion: Resveratrol is the most efficacious in relieving nasal discomfort, and cinnamon bark performs best in optimizing QoL. The results of this study provide scientific evidence for the use of botanical drugs (such as resveratrol and cinnamon) in nasal irrigation for the treatment of AR, offering new options for this disease. This is conducive to promoting the application and verification of some traditional drugs within the framework of modern medicine.
Keywords: allergic rhinitis, Nasal Lavage, Network meta-analysis, Systematic review, botanicaldrug
Received: 28 Jul 2025; Accepted: 27 Oct 2025.
Copyright: © 2025 Hu, Kong, Zhou, Shen, Sun and Deng. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) or licensor are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.
* Correspondence: Jing Deng, dj30590471@163.com
Disclaimer: All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article or claim that may be made by its manufacturer is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.
