The Effectiveness and Safety of Thunder Fire Moxibustion for Treating Allergic Rhinitis: A PRISMA Compliant Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Table 2

Basic characteristics of eligible RCTs.

Study ID	Sample size T/C	Age	Intervention		Period (w)	Adverse events	Outcome	Drop out	Moxibustion acupoint
			Trial group	Control group
Wang [23]	60 (30/30)	T: 32.87 ± 11.10; C: 32.80 ± 10.61	TFM	Mometasone furoate nasal spray	3/3	Non	Total effective rate, VAS, RQLQ, symptom score	Non	DU23, DU25, DU29, LI20, LU7, LI4, BL1
Zhao et al. [24]	102 (51/51)	T: 45.33 ± 1.39; C: 45.29 ± 1.35	TFM	Budesonide nasal spray	3/3	NR	Total effective rate	Non	DU23, DU25, DU29, LI20, LU7, LI4
Zhang [25]	60 (30/30)	T: 24.72 ± 7.43; C: 25.10 ± 8.14	TFM	Flixonase aqueous nasal spray	4/4	NR	Total effective rate	Non	DU23, DU25, DU29, LI20, LI4, EX-HN8, BL12, DU14, BL13
Chen [26]	206 (103/103)	T: 8–55; C: 10–52	TFM	Oxymetazoline	3/3	NR	Total effective rate	Non	DU23, DU25, DU29, LI20, LU7, LI4, BL1
Zhao and Zhang [27]	120 (60/60)	T: 8–63; C: 12–64	TFM	Beclomethasone dipropionate aerosol nasal spray	3/3	NR	Total effective rate	Non	DU23, DU25, DU29, LI20, BL1
Zhao et al. [28]	110 (55/55)	T/C: 47.1 ± 16.6 (11–80)	TFM	Beclomethasone dipropionate aerosol nasal spray	3/3	NR	Total effective rate, symptom score	Non	DU23, DU25, DU29, LI20, BL1
Xue et al. [29]	60 (30/30)	T/C: 32.12 ± 9.69 (18–55)	TFM	No treatment	3/3	NR	IgE, IgG	Non	DU23, DU29, LI20, LI4
Sun [30]	60 (30/30)	T/C: 12–58	TFM + budesonide nasal spray	Budesonide nasal spray	3/3	NR	Total effective rate	Non	DU23, DU25, DU29, LI20, BL1
Wu and Zhou [31]	200 (100/100)	T/C: 10–70	TFM + TCM	TCM	3/3	NR	Total effective rate	Non
Huang et al. [32]	58 (30/28)	T: 19.76 ± 1.76 (18–25); C: 19.62 ± 1.36 (18–23)	TFM + tuina	Tuina	3/3	NR	Symptom score	T: 0; C: 2	DU14, BL13, BL43, BL20, BL23
Zhang [33]	130 (65/65)	T: 35.69 ± 21.92; C: 34.62 ± 23.57	TFM + acupuncture	Acupuncture	3/3	NR	Total effective rate, symptom score	Non	DU29, LI20, LI4, RN12, RN4, RN6
Yang [34]	120 (60/60)	T/C: 37.3 ± 7.3 (10–51)	TFM + acupuncture	Acupuncture	3/3	NR	Total effective rate, symptom score	Non	DU23, DU25, DU29, LI20, BL1, LI4, BL13
Zhan [35]	60 (30/30)	T: 9.3 ± 6.1; C: 9.1 ± 5.9	TFM + acupoint patching	Acupoint patching	2/2	NR	Total effective rate, symptom score	Non	DU23, DU25, DU29, LI20, LI4
Wang [36]	60 (30/30)	T: 46.25 ± 7.13 (15–68); C: 46.02 ± 7.11 (15–67)	TFM + acupuncture	Acupuncture	2/2	NR	Total effective rate	Non	DU29, LI20, LI4, EX-HN8
Ding and Chang [37]	48 (24/24)	T: 29.1 ± 3.8 (9–49); C: 27.8 ± 4.1 (8–46)	TFM + acupuncture	Acupuncture	4/4	NR	Total effective rate, symptom score	Non	DU23, DU25, DU29, BL1, LU7, LI20, LI4
Liu et al. [38]	44 (22/22)	NR	TFM + acupuncture	Acupuncture	4/4	NR	Total effective rate, symptom score	Non	DU23, DU25, DU29, BL1, LU7, LI20, LI4
Lu [39]	48 (24/24)	T: 45.9 ± 12.4 (17–60); C: 47.8 ± 13.1 (16–62)	TFM + acupuncture	Acupuncture	4/4	NR	Symptom score	Non	DU23, DU25, DU29, BL1, LU7, LI20, LI4
Zhang [40]	54 (27/27)	T: 15–68; C: 16–; 66	TFM + acupuncture	Acupuncture	2/2	NR	Total effective rate	Non	DU29, LI20, LI4, EX-HN8

Note. TFM = thunder fire moxibustion; TCM = traditional Chinese medicine; NR = not reported; VAS = visual analog scale.