RT Journal Article SR Electronic T1 Efficacy and safety of Ayurveda interventions for Sinusitis: A systematic review and meta-analysis JF medRxiv FD Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Press SP 2021.03.11.21253190 DO 10.1101/2021.03.11.21253190 A1 Azeem Ahmad A1 Manohar S. Gundeti A1 Parth P. Dave A1 Sophia Jameela A1 Shruti Khanduri A1 B.C.S. Rao A1 N. Srikanth YR 2021 UL http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2021/04/12/2021.03.11.21253190.abstract AB Objectives To provide a broad evaluation of the efficacy and safety of Ayurveda interventions (procedural and non-procedural) for the management of sinusitis, and also of the relative efficacy and safety of different Ayurveda therapies for Sinusitis.Methods Five electronic databases for published research articles, three databases for the unpublished doctoral thesis, clinical trial registries, and hand searches were done till August 2020. All comparative clinical trials recruiting sinusitis patients of any age group, receiving Ayurveda intervention, regardless of forms, dosages, and ingredients, for not less than one week were included. The data extraction and the risk of bias(RoB) assessment were done by two reviewers independently.Results A total of 2824 records were identified, of which 09 randomized parallel arms trials met inclusion criteria. No studies were found comparing Ayurveda versus placebo or non-Ayurveda interventions. Combined Ayurveda therapy (CT) was statistically more beneficial compared with either procedural or non-procedural Ayurveda therapy alone in reducing symptoms nasal discharge (standardized MD −0.71, 95% CI −1.16 to −0.26, I2 58%, 210 participants) and headache (standardized MD −0.44, 95% CI −0.86 to −0.02, I2 56%, 218 participants), however, no significant difference was found in reducing symptoms nasal obstruction and loss of smell. No numerical data related to the safety of Ayurveda intervention was found in included trials. Because, included trials(09) were having ‘high’ to ‘unclear’ overall bias, sub-standard methodology, and heterogeneity in results, the overall findings need to be interpreted cautiously.Conclusions Although individual studies appeared to produce positive results, very low certainty of total effect(downgraded twice for RoB, once for inconsistency, indirectness, and imprecision each) hindered to arrive at any conclusion regarding efficacy or safety of Ayurveda interventions for sinusitis. There is a need for well-designed-executed-reported clinical studies on clinically relevant outcomes.PROSPERO registration number RD42018103995Strength and limitations of this studyThis is the first systematic review to provide the status of available evidence on the efficacy and safety of Ayurveda interventions for sinusitis.The search strategy was comprehensive, all the relevant sources were searched for published as well as unpublished research works.This systematic review has a broad review question, which compromises its eternal validity.The certainty of the overall effect is ‘very low’ due to ‘unclear’ to ‘high’ overall risk of bias, lack of validated outcome measures, inconsistency in results with wide CIs, small sample sizes, incomplete reporting, etc.Competing Interest StatementThe authors have declared no competing interest.Clinical Protocols https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?ID=CRD42018103995 Funding StatementThis review was funded by Central Council for Research in Ayurvedic Sciences(CCRAS), Ministry of AYUSH, Government of India, and all authors are working as Research officers for this Council.Author DeclarationsI confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.YesThe details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:As this is a systematic review of published research work, RB/oversight body approval was exempted.All necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived.YesI understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).YesI have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines and uploaded the relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material as supplementary files, if applicable.YesThe datasets used and analyzed during the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.