Antihistamines vs acupuncture: Proportion of susceptible participants who did not experience any motion sickness symptoms under experimental conditions Assessed by: calculated based on head movements tolerated (rotating chair); MSAQ
- Population
- patients with motion sickness
- Intervention
- Antihistamines
- Comparison
- acupuncture
- Outcome
- Proportion of susceptible participants who did not experience any motion sickness symptoms under experimental conditions Assessed by: calculated based on head movements tolerated (rotating chair); MSAQ
It is very uncertain whether antihistamines changes proportion of susceptible participants who did not experience any… compared with acupuncture (very low certainty).
What each review found
Current versions only| Finding | Effect | Studies | GRADE certainty |
|---|---|---|---|
Antihistamines vs acupuncture Proportion of susceptible participants who did not experience any motion sickness symptoms under experimental conditions Assessed by: Graybiel motion sickness scale · patients with motion sickness It is very uncertain whether antihistamines changes proportion of susceptible participants who did not experience any… compared with acupuncture (very low certainty). Antihistamines for motion sickness (2022) · Cochrane Headline outcomes only | RR 1.32 [1.12, 1.57] | 1 study · 100 participants | Very low |
Findings are shown side by side, never pooled across reviews.
The reviews
| Review | Searched up to | Included studies | AMSTAR 2 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Antihistamines for motion sickness 2022 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only | Not reported | Not extracted | Not assessed |
Related questions
The same intervention and outcome, asked in another population or against another comparator.
- Antihistamines vs antiemetics · patients with motion sickness · 1 review
- Antihistamines vs placebo · patients with motion sickness · 1 review
How reviews are matched to this question
Reviews word the same question differently. Four decision models (TypeSafe's Jev, Liquid AI's d1-ultra, SubQ Snap and Baseten's Elephant) judged each wording of the population, intervention, comparator and outcome against the others; two wordings count as the same when at least three of them agree and none clearly disagrees, and findings count as this question only when all four elements match. Timing, setting and subgroup never split a question: they are shown on each finding.