Efficacy and safety of Ayurveda interventions for Sinusitis: A systematic review and meta-analysis ================================================================================================== * Azeem Ahmad * Manohar S. Gundeti * Parth P. Dave * Sophia Jameela * Shruti Khanduri * B.C.S. Rao * N. Srikanth ## ABSTRACT **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** Two reviewers independently screened search results from electronic databases viz. Cochrane Library, PubMed(central), AYUSH Research Portal, and DHARA for published research articles and Shodhganga, RGUHS library, and ARD-IPGT&RA for the unpublished doctoral thesis. Trial registries (CTRI, Clinicaltrials.gov & WHO-ICTRP), and hand searches were also done for other relevant studies from inception to August 2020. All comparative clinical trials recruiting sinusitis patients of any age group, receiving Ayurveda intervention, regardless of forms, dosages, ingredients, and mode of interventions, for not less than one week were included. The data extraction and the risk of bias assessment were done by two reviewers independently. Protocol registration number: RD42018103995. **Results** We included 10 trials (387 participants) for qualitative analysis and 07 trials (287 participants) for quantitative analysis. Ayurveda intervention demonstrated potential in reducing signs and symptoms of sinusitis compared with placebo (Risk Ratio ranges 6.33 to 12.67, 1 trial, 80 participants). 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%, 10 comparisons, 210 participants) and headache (standardized MD −0.44, 95% CI −0.86 to −0.02, I2 56%, 10 comparisons, 218 participants), however, no significant difference was found in reducing symptoms nasal obstruction and loss of smell. Also, there was no significant difference found in similar outcomes while comparing Ayurveda procedural therapy with non-procedural therapy. No numerical data related to the safety of Ayurveda intervention was found in included trials. **Conclusions** Despite very low certainty in results (downgraded twice for RoB, once for inconsistency, indirectness, and imprecision each), Ayurveda intervention (CT) may have some beneficial effects in the management of Sinusitis. However, due to insufficient data, we could not conclude on the safety aspect. There is a need for **well-designed-executed-reported** clinical studies for the generation of evidence. Keywords * *Ayurveda* * Systematic Review * Meta-analysis * Sinusitis * Rhinosinusitis * *Pratishyaya* * *Peenasa* ## BACKGROUND All the recently published guidelines have adopted the term rhinosinusitis (RS) instead of sinusitis. RS is the inflammation of the nose and paranasal sinuses characterized by two or more symptoms, one of which should be either, nasal blockage/obstruction/congestion or nasal discharge and the second either facial pain/pressure or reduction/loss of smell or both of these with objective findings on either computed tomography or nasal endoscopy[1]. In acute rhinosinusitis, there is complete resolution of symptoms within 12 weeks of onset, and persistence of symptoms beyond is categorized as chronic rhinosinusitis(CRS). Acute rhinosinusitis(ARC) usually has an infective etiology while the etiology of chronic rhinosinusitis is likely to be multifactorial, with inflammation, infection, and obstruction of sinus ventilation playing a part[2]. CRS is an important chronic public health problem affecting the quality of life of more than 5% of people[3]. The overall prevalence of symptom-based CRS in the population has been found to be between 5.5% and 28%, while when symptoms are combined with endoscopy or CT scan prevalence is reduced to 3-6%[1]. The treatment strategy of RS includes oral and nasal antibiotics, steroids, antihistamines as well as nasal sprays, and saline irrigation in chronic as well as acute conditions[1,4]. More than 1 in 5 antibiotics prescribed in adults are for RS, making it the fifth commonest diagnosis liable for antibiotic therapy[4]. Emerging threats of antibiotic resistance have necessitated the need for exploring other interventions that could offer better or comparable efficacy and safety. Ayurveda is one among various Indian Traditional systems of medicine that have withstood the test of time and the glory of the system as holistic medicine is still hailed in India as well as different parts of the world. The clinical features of the disease *Pratishyaya* mentioned in different Ayurveda texts have symptomatic similarity to sinusitis/ rhinosinusitis. Depending upon the characteristics of the disease, and pathophysiological characteristics of the patient, treatment strategies are designed in Ayurveda. Modalities of treatment include both *Shodhana* (bio-purificatory therapies including *Panchakarma*) and *Shamana* (palliative therapy). Ayurveda standard treatment guideline was published by the Ministry of AYUSH, Government of India, which recommends different Ayurveda treatment strategies and modalities according to the different clinical settings [5]. However, the lack of empirical evidence and biological plausibility of the probable efficacy or safety of the interventions enlisted for clinical use probes the gathering of evidence through systematic review and meta-analysis. The first-line treatment in rhinosinusitis, irrespective of the requirement has emerged as Antibiotics, and if the review could gather conclusive evidence, on the safety and efficacy of Ayurveda interventions, that could effectively manage the disease without resorting to antibiotics, it would be highly beneficial to the patients who suffer from RS. Since there is a paucity of robust, clinically oriented scientific studies in Ayurveda, this would at least aid in identifying the lacunae in available evidence and would pave the way for conducting robust clinical studies. Therefore, this systematic review was conducted with an objective to provide a broad evaluation of the efficacy and safety of Ayurveda interventions (procedural and non-procedural) for the management of sinusitis/rhinosinusitis and also to review the relative efficacy and safety of procedural therapy(*Shodhana)*, non-procedural therapy(*Shamana)*, and a combination of these for the management of sinusitis. ## METHODS This systematic review was conducted in accordance with the guidelines of the Cochrane Handbook of Systematic Review of Interventions[6], and is reported following the Preferred Reporting Guideline for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) guidelines[7]. The protocol was registered prospectively with PROSPERO, with registration number RD42018103995; available from [https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/](https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/). ### Eligibility Criteria Studies fulfilling the criteria of 1.Study design: All comparative clinical trials including randomized controlled trials (RCTs), quasi-randomized controlled trials, Non-randomized trials (nRCTs), multiple arms clinical trials. 2. Population: Patients diagnosed with either sinusitis/rhinosinusitis (either diagnosed clinically or also confirmed with laboratory and radiological findings), or Pratishyaya/Pinasa as defined in Ayurveda, irrespective of age and sex. 3. Intervention: Ayurveda treatment (*Shamana* or/and *Shodhana*) as standalone or add-on therapy with any dose, type, schedule, medicine, dosage form, either alone or combination, with or without *Pathya-apathya* (diet and lifestyle regimen). Patients may receive additional non-Ayurveda intervention in all groups of study. 4. Comparator: The comparator arm utilizing Ayurveda interventions with a different dose, type, schedule, dosage form; or Non-Ayurveda interventions including contemporary interventions, Placebo, Sham therapy; or their combinations. 5. Duration of intervention: From 7 days to 45 days. ### Outcomes of interest The primary outcomes of interest are the response in terms of improvement in Subjective and/or objective criteria of assessment in RS and reported serious adverse events(SAE) resulting in death, disability or incapacity, life-threatening complications, that required hospitalization. Secondary outcomes included withdrawals of the participant from the study due to adverse events(AE)/adverse drug reaction(ADR), non-response to treatment or inconvenience of therapy/treatment, and the number of patients with specific AE. ### Study identification We searched various databases including PubMed(Central), Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials(CENTRAL), AYUSH Research Portal (Govt of India), DHARA, Google Scholar, and Online clinical trial registers (CTRI, Clinicaltrials.gov & WHO-ICTRP). Furthermore, reference lists of related publications were also searched to get relevant publications. For unpublished postgraduate (P.G.) and doctoral (Ph.D.) dissertation works, we have searched the *Shodhganga* portal, university/Institutional website, and other potential sources from conception to August 2020, and studies reported in English or Hindi language were selected. The main search items included, ‘Ayurved*’, ‘sinusitis’, ‘Rhinosinusitis’, ‘Pratishyaya’, ‘Pinasa’, and their synonyms. Search strategy for AYUSH Research Portal and Cochrane CENTRAL databases are provided in an additional file [see Additional file.1]. ### Selection of studies and Data extraction Two reviewers independently screened the title and abstract of identified articles. Potentially eligible articles were thoroughly scanned fully to match with eligibility criteria. If needed, the corresponding authors were contacted for additional information through e-mail or telephone. Data were extracted for data items viz. authors name, year of publication, diagnosis, sample size, interventions, controls, safety and efficacy outcomes measures, follow-up, AE/ADR, and dropout with reason. Any disagreement was consulted and settled through discussions with a third reviewer, where necessary. ### Assessment of risk of bias and overall quality of evidence Two reviewers independently assessed the risk of bias(RoB) for each included RCT using the revised tool(RoB2) described in the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions[6], and assessed with the help of an automated excel tool available online[8]. The RoB for Non-randomized trials (nRCT) was assessed with the ROBINS-I tool(Risk Of Bias In Non-randomized Studies - of Interventions)[9]. The assessment was made on the study level and any disagreement was resolved through discussion. To assess the overall quality of evidence for primary outcomes, the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation(GRADE) approach was applied with the help of an online available tool[10,11]. ### Data Analysis For continuous outcomes, the mean change from baseline for each group with corresponding standard deviations (SDs) was recorded, and for dichotomous data, the Risk ratio (RR) was calculated with a confidence interval of 95%. We used Review Manager Software (RevManV.5.3) for analysis[12], and got a pooled estimate of treatment effect as standardized mean difference(SMD) between groups and corresponding 95% CIs because in some included studies there was no information about scales used for measurement. We found diversity in interventions, controls, time point of assessment, and population, a random effect model was applied in all meta-analyses. The *I**2* statistic was used to calculate the statistical heterogeneity, and the value, greater than 60% was considered as significant, and sources of heterogeneity were analyzed. We performed a **subgroup analysis** where two categories of Ayurveda interventions in the control group i.e. Non-procedural therapy (*Shamana therapy)* or Procedural therapy (*Shodhana therapy)* were used. For **sensitivity analysis**, we have assessed any differences in results with and without combining the results of nRCTs and RCTs, and also published and unpublished data. ### Risk of bias acr oss studies All efforts were made to retrieve and compare the original trial protocols with the final publications and wherever possible, to identify any outcomes that were measured but not reported. ## RESULTs ### Study Selection A total of 2824 records were identified from all sources. After the removal of duplicates and other irrelevant results, 68 records were available. After screening titles and abstracts, 44 records were excluded and the remaining 24 were further subjected to full-text screening as per the selection criteria. After the screening, 10 were included in qualitative analysis, among which 7 were subjected to meta-analysis. The screening process is shown in Figure 1. Literature screening flow chart. ### Description of studies Among these 10 selected comparative clinical trials (pre-treatment n = 387; end of treatment n = 363) [13,14,15,16,17,18,19,20,21,22], 8 were RCTs and 02 were nRCTs. Out of these 10 trials, 5 RCTs and 2 nRCTs were included in quantitative analysis (pre-treatment n = 287; end of treatment n = 259). Among them, 4 trials were having three arms and 3 trials were having two arms and blinding was reported in only one trial[22]. However, none of the trials mentioned concealment methods. The mean participants in each arm of the trials were found to be 16. All the selected studies were conducted in the outpatient department(OPD) and inpatient department(IPD) of different Ayurveda college hospitals and research institutes of India except one[22], which was conducted in Srilanka. Heterogeneity was observed in the included study population(diagnosis), treatment protocol, and follow-up duration. All the selected studies reported subjective outcomes in the form of the severity of the symptoms, while only 03 studies utilized self-developed assessment scales (Likert scale), ranging from 0 to 4, where 4 means worse state and 0 means no symptoms[14,21,15]. The remaining studies did not provide any relevant information on the scale used. Hematological(CBC and inflammatory markers) and radiological (x-ray Paranasal sinuses) parameters were the most commonly used objective parameters in the selected studies. Among the 10 parallel arm trials, only one trial compared Ayurveda interventions against placebo[22], and the remaining 9 trials compared different Ayurveda interventions parallelly. All the included trials reported either partial or complete resolution of symptoms at specific time points. In 5 trials, narrative reporting on adverse events was available[13,14,17,18,22]. Key data points from the included trials are summarised in Table 1. View this table: [Table 1:](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2021/03/12/2021.03.11.21253190/T1) Table 1: Characteristics of included trials of Ayurveda intervention fo RS **Table 1: Characteristics of included trials of Ayurveda intervention for RS Interventions** Three major categories of Ayurveda intervention were identified during the screening of search results which include 1.A combination of Ayurveda procedural & non-procedural interventions (CT), 2.Ayurveda procedural interventions (PT) alone, and 3. Ayurveda non-procedural oral interventions (NPT) alone.PT and NPT collectively reported as Single Therapy(ST) in this review. Details regarding the interventions used in the included studies are presented in an additional file [see Additional file.2]. ### Risk of bias within studies Generally, the quality of the included studies was poor due to unclear or high overall risk of bias. In most of the included trials, it is only mentioned that “participants were randomly allocated into the groups” and no further details about the randomization process were provided, and also there was no information about allocation sequence concealment and blinding process. Only one trial has reported the use of a random number table for random sequence generation[19], and the blinding was reported in only one trial[22]. The reporting of outcome data (baseline characteristics, age of the participants, the number of participants included in each analysis, the number of participants who completed the treatment, and dropped outs) was also incomplete. Selective outcome reporting was not evaluated because we could not find a registered protocol for all the included studies. In addition, the sample size of all the trials was very low and none of the trials reported how sample size was calculated. It was also not reported in any of the trials that intention-to-treatment or per-protocol analysis was used and it was suspected that dropouts were excluded from the analysis. The ‘Risk of bias’ findings are shown in Figure 2. ‘Risk of bias’ summary of Randomized trials, and Figure 3. ‘Risk of bias’ summary of Non-Randomized trials ### Outcomes and Effectiveness of Ayurveda Interventions As there were multiple subjective outcome measures of efficacy (signs and symptoms) were used within the study and which were also heterogeneous among the studies. Hence, we have selected the most common signs and symptoms reported in the selected studies viz. Nasal blockage/obstruction/congestion, nasal discharge, and reduction/loss of smell for meta-analysis analysis, which were included in the diagnostic criteria of RS suggested in the European position paper on rhinosinusitis and nasal polyps-EPOS 2012[1], and also the symptom “headache” which was assessed in most of the included studies. #### Ayurveda (Ay) versus Placebo(P) We found only one trial with 80 participants in this comparison, in which a complex formulation in the form of decoction containing herbs mentioned in classical Ayurveda text tested against the placebo[22]. The risk ratio of complete or partial improvement of symptoms to unchanged or aggravated symptoms between the two groups was calculated. The Ayurveda intervention yielded a favorable effect on the proportion of patients who achieved improvement in nasal discharge (RR: 7.20, 95% CI: 3.15, 16.45, p<0.00001), nasal obstruction (RR: 12.67, 95% CI: 4.26, 37.70, p<0.00001), loss of smell (RR: 8.25, 95% CI: 3.22, 21.13, p<0.0001), and headache (RR: 6.33, 95% CI: 3.02, 13.29, p<0.00001**)**. #### Ayurveda Combined therapy (CT) versus Ayurveda single therapy (ST) Data from 06 trials were pooled to determine the effects of CT versus ST strategies on the changes in symptom nasal discharge[13,15,17,19,20,21]. However, 04 of the studies were 3-arm trials[13,15,21], for which we analysed each comparison separately (including 10 comparisons, total n=210). Compared with ST, CT showed a statistically significant difference in reduction in symptom **nasal discharge (*Nasasrava*)** (SMD = −0.71; 95% CI = −1.16, −0.26; p=0.002, *I**2*=58%), however in subgroup analysis, CT versus NPT, CT was found beneficial (SMD= −0.89; 95% CI = −1.53, −0.25; p=0.007, *I**2*=69%). However, the difference between CT and PT was statistically non-significant (SMD= −0.38; 95% CI = −0.88, 0.13; p=0.15, *I**2*=0%) (Fig 4). ![Figure1](http://medrxiv.org/https://www.medrxiv.org/content/medrxiv/early/2021/03/12/2021.03.11.21253190/F1.medium.gif) [Figure1](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2021/03/12/2021.03.11.21253190/F1) ![Figure2](http://medrxiv.org/https://www.medrxiv.org/content/medrxiv/early/2021/03/12/2021.03.11.21253190/F2.medium.gif) [Figure2](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2021/03/12/2021.03.11.21253190/F2) ![Figure3](http://medrxiv.org/https://www.medrxiv.org/content/medrxiv/early/2021/03/12/2021.03.11.21253190/F3.medium.gif) [Figure3](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2021/03/12/2021.03.11.21253190/F3) ![Fig. 4](http://medrxiv.org/https://www.medrxiv.org/content/medrxiv/early/2021/03/12/2021.03.11.21253190/F4.medium.gif) [Fig. 4](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2021/03/12/2021.03.11.21253190/F4) Fig. 4 Forest plot of comparison 1 Combined Therapy (CT) Vs Single Therapy (ST), outcome 1.1 Nasal discharge (Nasasrava). ![Fig. 5](http://medrxiv.org/https://www.medrxiv.org/content/medrxiv/early/2021/03/12/2021.03.11.21253190/F5.medium.gif) [Fig. 5](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2021/03/12/2021.03.11.21253190/F5) Fig. 5 Forest plot of comparison 1 Combined Therapy (CT) Vs Single Therapy (ST), outcome 1.1 Nasal discharge (Nasasrava). Forest plot of comparison 1 Combined Therapy (CT) Vs Single Therapy (ST), outcome 1.2 Nasal obstruction (Nasa-Avrodha). While analysing effect of CT versus ST on improvement in symptom **nasal obstruction (*Nasa-Avrodha*)**, data from 06 trials (including 10 comparisons, total n=216) were pooled [13,15,17,19,20,21], and showed non-significant difference between CT and ST (SMD= −0.31; 95% CI = −0.74, 0.12; p=0.16, *I**2*=57%), also in subgroup analysis, the differences between CT and PT (SMD= −0.52; 95% CI = −1.16, 0.13; p=0.03, *I**2*=31%), and CT and NPT (SMD= −0.22; 95% CI = −0.78, 0.33; p=0.43, *I**2*=65%), were non-significant (Fig 5). CT was having a significant positive difference (SMD= −0.44; 95% CI = −0.88, −0.02; p=0.04, *I**2*=56%) on reducing symptom **headache (*Shirashoola*)** during combining the data from 06 trials (including 10 comparisons, total n =218) [13,15,17,19,20,21], however in subgroup analysis, CT versus NPT, CT was found beneficial (SMD= −0.55; 95% CI = −1.06, −0.05; p=0.03, *I**2*=57%), while analysing CT versus PT, the difference was statistically non-significant (SMD= −0.16; 95% CI = −1.02, 0.71; p=0.72, *I**2*=64%) (Fig 6). ![Fig. 6](http://medrxiv.org/https://www.medrxiv.org/content/medrxiv/early/2021/03/12/2021.03.11.21253190/F6.medium.gif) [Fig. 6](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2021/03/12/2021.03.11.21253190/F6) Fig. 6 Forest plot of comparison 1 Combined Therapy (CT) Vs Single Therapy (ST), outcome 1.3 Headache (Shirashoola). CT was having an insignificant difference in results (SMD= −0.36; 95% CI = −0.79, 0.07; p=0.03, *I**2*=0%) on reducing symptom **loss of smell (*Ghrana viplava*)** during combining the data from 04 trials (including 6 comparisons, total n =88)[13,15,17,21], also no significant differences were found in both subgroup analysis, CT versus NPT (SMD= −0.31; 95% CI = −0.94, 0.31; p=0.32, *I**2*=0%), and CT versus PT (SMD= −0.40; 95% CI = −1.03, 0.23; p=0.21, *I**2*=13%) (Fig 7). ![Fig. 7](http://medrxiv.org/https://www.medrxiv.org/content/medrxiv/early/2021/03/12/2021.03.11.21253190/F7.medium.gif) [Fig. 7](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2021/03/12/2021.03.11.21253190/F7) Fig. 7 Forest plot of comparison 1 Combined Therapy (CT) Vs Single Therapy (ST), outcome 1.4 Loss of smell (Ghrana-viplava). Fig.4: Forest plot of comparison: 1 Combined Therapy (CT) Vs Single Therapy (ST), outcome: 1.1 **Nasal dischar ge (*Nasasrava*)**. Fig.5: Forest plot of comparison: 1 Combined Therapy (CT) Vs Single Therapy (ST), outcome: 1.2 **Nasal obstruction (*Nasa-Avrodha*)**. Fig.6: Forest plot of comparison: 1 Combined Therapy (CT) Vs Single Therapy (ST), outcome: 1.3 **Headache (*Shirashoola*)**. Fig. 7: Forest plot of comparison: 1 Combined Therapy (CT) Vs Single Therapy (ST), outcome: 1.4 **Loss of smell (*Ghrana-viplava*)**. #### Ayurveda Procedural therapy (PT) versus Ayurveda Non-procedural therapy (NPT) Data from 03 trials [13,15,21] were pooled to determine the effects of PT versus NPT on the changes in symptoms of nasal discharge, nasal obstruction, loss of sense of smell/taste, and headache. There was no significant difference found between these two Ayurveda treatment strategies on any of the earlier mentioned symptoms. Details are provided in the additional file [see Additional file.3] ### Adverse events Out of 10 studies included in qualitative analysis, none of them included any safety outcome measures. Also, none of the trials reported risk of AE /ADR in procedural and nonprocedural Ayurveda interventions numerically; however, 4 trials reported ‘no events’ narratively in very short[13,14,17,20], and one trial reported AE (diarrhea, impaired appetite, mild abdominal pain, and anosmia) in 17% of participants in Ayurveda intervention group[22]. Out of 10 included studies, 4 studies reported dropouts[15,17,19,21], but only one of these reported reasons for these as LAMA (left against medical advice)[17]. However, the reasons for these attrition were not reported, it is difficult to exclude the chance of non-compliance due to unpalatability of Ayurveda interventions, discomforts with different therapeutic procedures, and unrecorded AEs/ADRs/SAEs. ### Summary of Findings ## DISCUSSION ### Summary of main results We found only one study comparing an Ayurveda intervention with a placebo in which a decoction of herbal drugs mentioned in Ayurveda was tested against placebo[22], and Ayurveda drug appeared to be more effective than placebo in terms of complete or partial resolution rate of clinical symptoms and signs. Considering the low certainty in results (downgraded twice for RoB, and once for each inconsistency, imprecision, and indirectness) of this trial, at present, it is difficult to make any conclusion regarding the use of Ayurveda intervention over non-Ayurveda intervention or placebo. Details are given in Table 2: Summary of Findings (SoF), Comparison 1. View this table: [Table 2:](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2021/03/12/2021.03.11.21253190/T2) Table 2: Summary of Findings (SoF)Table However, we also found trials testing the effects of two major modalities of Ayurveda, PT, and NPT in this disease condition. As per the protocol, we compared the combined effects of these two therapeutic modalities of Ayurveda(PT and NPT) against either of these, we found that the CT was statistically more beneficial in reducing the symptom headache (*Shirashoola*) and nasal discharge (*Nasa-shrava*), however, there is also some evidence of a better effect of CT in reducing symptom loss of smell (*Ghrana viplava*), but the result has just missed statistical significance. There was no significant difference found in reducing symptom nasal obstruction (*Nasa-avrodha*). We also compared the effect of PT with NPT, and no significant difference was found in the improvement of any of the above-mentioned symptoms. Details are given in Table2: SoF table, Comparison 2 &3. None of the trials have reported any data on few clinically relevant outcomes viz. safety outcome measures, AE, ADR, SAE, disease-specific quality of life, overall improvement, and economic outcomes. We are unable to make any conclusion or recommendation about these outcomes in all categories of comparisons. **Table 2: Summary of Findings (SoF)Table** ### Quality of the evidenc All the included trials were methodologically weak and poorly reported mostly in non-indexed journals, which results in the synthesis of evidence with ‘very low’ certainty in their results. There was insufficient or no information about randomization, allocation concealment, and blinding in most of the included trials which may result in a high chance of performance bias and detection bias[23]. The trials identified in this review were mostly Indian trials which compromise the generalizability of the results. We were unable to detect the publication bias as the number of included studies was insufficient for formal statistical testing and to generate funnel plots[6]. Although such limitations do not always mean that the treatment is not safe and ineffective, they might indicate that the effectiveness and safety have not been adequately investigated. ## Limitations The question of this review was addressing a broad PICOT(Population, Intervention, Control, and Outcome, Timepoint), which included a broad range of conventional diagnostic sub-classification viz. Acute and chronic rhinosinusitis, maxillary sinusitis, as well as the various resembling similar conditions in Ayurveda e.g. *Peenasa, Dushta Pratishyaya, Kaphaja Shira Shoola, Kaphaja Shiroroga*, and *Suryavarta*. The criteria used to define disease conditions, the chronicity of conditions, and the age groups of participants were varied considerably among the included trials. About 13 complex Ayurveda formulations and 05 Ayurveda procedural interventions with different doses, duration, and schedules have been tested but none of these protocols have been tested repeatedly. The outcome measures were also varied among the trials and none of the trials included any quality of life(QoL) and safety outcome measures in their assessments. As we found only 7 trials for quantitative analysis[13,15,17,19,20,21,22], and the protocols of these trials were also not accessible so the chance of publication bias and selective reporting bias cannot be ignored. Although we have highlighted the clinical diversity amongst the trials, it is important to understand whether there is a difference in the treatment effect between these two major treatment modalities of Ayurveda. However, this broad approach limits the implication of the results of this analysis. ## Conclusion ### Implications for practice *For clinicians*, due to the lack of Ayurveda Vs Placebo or Non-Ayurveda intervention trials, the authors are not able to make any recommendations of practice Ayurveda over Non-Ayurveda practice. However, recommendations may be made to practice combined Ayurveda therapy (*Shodhana* & *Shamana*) over single Ayurveda therapy (*Shodhana* or *Shamana*) for the management of RS. *For policy-makers*, the prospective systematic review methodology can be one of the possible solutions for studies going to be conducted for PG and Ph.D. dissertation work as there are limited resources available for these works. *For funders of interventions*, it is highly recommended to conduct high-quality non-inferiority or equivalence efficacy and safety trials adopting an ‘Integrative Trial Design’ comparing Ayurveda interventions Vs standard conventional care or Ayurveda as add on therapy Vs conventional therapy alone, and Ayurveda Vs placebo trials wherever justified. ### Implications for research #### General implications We found very poor adherence to reporting guidelines in most of the studies included in this review. None of the included studies has reported the effect size of the treatment which is recommended in CONSORT guidelines[24] and results were only interpreted based on ‘p-values’ which has a limited role in clinical significance. It is recommended for authors, reviewers, and editors to comply with available reporting guidelines suitable for Ayurveda trials viz. Reporting Randomized, Controlled Trials of Herbal Interventions: An Elaborated CONSORT Statement, etc.[25,26,27]. However, it is also needed to develop specific guidelines or extensions to existing guidelines for reporting Ayurveda trials. Considering the limitation of blinding in some Ayurveda procedural intervention trials, allocation sequence concealment, and blinding of outcomes assessors are needed to be implemented and Intention-to-treat analysis should also be performed on all outcomes. Also, the available guidelines[28], and tools[29] should be utilized to develop a good study protocol. “The consequences of low statistical power include overestimates of effect size and low reproducibility of results and there are also ethical dimensions to this problem, as unreliable research is inefficient and wasteful”[30]. The small sample size of all the included studies is also a limitation to generalize the result. The prospective systematic review methodology31 can be adopted in conducting small trials as required for P.G. and Ph.D. courses. #### Measurement implications There were around 50 different subjective and objective OMs assessed in studies included in this review, most of them were subjective and the information about how they were assessed was also missing and the validity and reliability of these criteria are also questionable. None of the trials included any safety assessment criteria for procedural as well as non-procedural interventions. This is a need of the hour to develop standard outcome measures and Core Outcome Set(COS) for Ayurveda following standard development guidelines[32]. ## Supporting information Supplementary Appendix\_1\_Search strategy [[supplements/253190_file11.docx]](pending:yes) Supplementary appendix\_2\_Contents of Interventions [[supplements/253190_file12.docx]](pending:yes) Supplementary Appendix\_3\_Summary of Quantitative Analysis [[supplements/253190_file13.docx]](pending:yes) PRISMA 2009 checklist [[supplements/253190_file14.pdf]](pending:yes) ## Data Availability The datasets used and analyzed during the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request. ## Funding for this review This 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’s contributions AA and MG conceived the article. AA, MG, and PD drafted the protocol, evaluated the risk of bias, and contributed to GARDE analysis. AA and PD retrieve the literature, extracted, and analyzed the data. AA wrote this manuscript and SJ contributed to language editing work. MG, BCS, SJ, SK, and SN gave suggestions for the discussions and structure of the manuscript. All authors have read and approved this manuscript. ## Availability of data and materials The datasets used and analyzed during the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request. ## Ethics approval and consent to participate Not applicable. ## Consent for publication Not applicable. ## Competing interests The authors declare that there is no conflict of interest. ## ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS We would like to thank **Vd**.**Prof**.**K**.**S**.**Dhiman**, Director General, CCRAS for his guidance and support, and **Dr. Himanshu Negandhi**, Prof. IIPH, New Delhi for methodological inputs. ## List of abbreviations DHARA : Digital Helpline for Ayurveda Research Articles RGUHS : Rajiv Gandhi University of Health Sciences ARD-IPGT&RA : Ayurvedic Research Database-Institute for Postgraduate Teaching and Research in Ayurveda CTRI : Clinical Trial Registry India WHO-ICTRP : World Health Organization-International Clinical Trials Registry Platform CT : Combined Ayurveda therapy ST : Single Therapy PT : Procedural Therapy NPT : Non-Procedural Therapy OPD : Outpatient department IPD : Inpatient department SMD : Standardized Mean Difference SDs : Standard deviations CI : Confidance Inerval RR : Risk ratio RS : Rhinosinusitis CRS : Chronic Rhinosinusitis ARC : Acute rhinosinusitis PRISMA : Preferred Reporting Guideline for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis guidelines PROSPERO : International prospective register of systematic reviews RCTs : Randomized controlled trials nRCTs : Non-randomized trials SAE : Serious adverse events AE : Adverse events ADR : Adverse drug reaction P.G. : Post Graduate RoB : Risk of Bias ROBINS-I : Risk Of Bias In Non-randomized Studies - of Interventions GRADE : Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation CBC : Complete Blood Count PICOT : Population, Intervention, Control, Timepoint SoF : Summary of Finding CONSORT : Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials CCRAS : Central Council for Research in Ayurvedic Sciences IIPH : Indian Institute of Public Health AA : Azeem Ahmad MG : Manohar Gundeti PD : Parth Dave SJ : Sophia Jameela BCS : Bhogavalli Chandrashekhar Rao SK : Shruti Khanduri SN : Srikanth Narayanam * Received March 11, 2021. * Revision received March 11, 2021. * Accepted March 12, 2021. * © 2021, Posted by Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory The copyright holder for this pre-print is the author. All rights reserved. The material may not be redistributed, re-used or adapted without the author's permission. ## REFERENCE 1. 1.Fokkens WJ, Lund VJ, Mullol J, Bachert C, Alobid I, Baroody F, Cohen N, Cervin A, Douglas R, Gevaert P, Georgalas C, Goossens H, Harvey R, Hellings P, Hopkins C, Jones N, Joos G, Kalogjera L, Kern B, Kowalski M, Price D, Riechelmann H, Schlosser R, Senior B, Thomas M, Toskala E, Voegels R, Wang de Y, Wormald PJ. EPOS 2012: European position paper on rhinosinusitis and nasal polyps 2012. A summary for otorhinolaryngologists. Rhinology. 2012 Mar;50(1):1–12. [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.4193/Rhino50E2&link_type=DOI) [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=22469599&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2021%2F03%2F12%2F2021.03.11.21253190.atom) 2. 2.The Royal College of Surgeons: Commissioning Guide-Rhinosinusitis 2016. [https://www.rcseng.ac.uk/-/media/files/rcs/standards-and-research/commissioning/rhinosinusitis-commissioning-guide-for-republication.pdf](https://www.rcseng.ac.uk/-/media/files/rcs/standards-and-research/commissioning/rhinosinusitis-commissioning-guide-for-republication.pdf) (2020). Accessed on 15 Oct 2020. 3. 3.Pleis JR, Lucas JW, Ward BW. Summary health statistics for U.S. adults: National Health Interview Survey, 2008. Vital Health Stat 2009; 242: 1–157. 4. 4.Rosenfeld RM, Piccirillo JF, Chandrasekhar SS, Brook I, Ashok Kumar K, Kramper M, Orlandi RR, Palmer JN, Patel ZM, Peters A, Walsh SA, Corrigan MD. Clinical practice guideline (update): adult sinusitis. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2015 Apr;152(2 Suppl):S1–S39. [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1177/0194599814561600&link_type=DOI) [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=25644617&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2021%2F03%2F12%2F2021.03.11.21253190.atom) 5. 5.Ministry of AUSH: Ayurveda standard treatment guidelines-2017. [https://namayush.gov.in/content/standard-treatment-guidelines](https://namayush.gov.in/content/standard-treatment-guidelines) (2020). Accessed 15 Oct 2020. 6. 6.Higgins JPT, Thomas J, Chandler J, Cumpston M, Li T, Page MJ, Welch VA (editors). Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions version 6.1 (updated September 2020). Cochrane, 2020. [https://training.cochrane.org/cochrane-handbook-systematic-reviews-interventions](https://training.cochrane.org/cochrane-handbook-systematic-reviews-interventions). Accessed 15 Oct 2020. 7. 7.Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG, The PRISMA Group (2009) Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses: The PRISMA Statement. PLOS Medicine 6(7): e1000097. [https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.1000097](https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.1000097) 8. 8.Higgins JPT. Excel tool to implement RoB 2. [https://sites.google.com/site/riskofbiastool/welcome/rob-2-0-tool/current-version-of-rob-2?authuser=0](https://sites.google.com/site/riskofbiastool/welcome/rob-2-0-tool/current-version-of-rob-2?authuser=0) (2020). Accessed 19 Sep 2020. 9. 9.Sterne JAC, Hernán MA, Reeves BC, Savović J, Berkman ND, Viswanathan M, Henry D, Altman DG, Ansari MT, Boutron I, Carpenter JR, Chan AW, Churchill R, Deeks JJ, Hróbjartsson A, Kirkham J, Jüni P, Loke YK, Pigott TD, Ramsay CR, Regidor D, Rothstein HR, Sandhu L, Santaguida PL, Schünemann HJ, Shea B, Shrier I, Tugwell P, Turner L, Valentine JC, Waddington H, Waters E, Wells GA, Whiting PF, Higgins JPT. ROBINS-I: a tool for assessing risk of bias in non-randomized studies of interventions. BMJ 2016; 355; i4919; doi: 10.1136/bmj.i4919. [FREE Full Text](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/ijlink/YTozOntzOjQ6InBhdGgiO3M6MTQ6Ii9sb29rdXAvaWpsaW5rIjtzOjU6InF1ZXJ5IjthOjQ6e3M6ODoibGlua1R5cGUiO3M6NDoiRlVMTCI7czoxMToiam91cm5hbENvZGUiO3M6MzoiYm1qIjtzOjU6InJlc2lkIjtzOjE4OiIzNTUvb2N0MTJfMTEvaTQ5MTkiO3M6NDoiYXRvbSI7czo1MDoiL21lZHJ4aXYvZWFybHkvMjAyMS8wMy8xMi8yMDIxLjAzLjExLjIxMjUzMTkwLmF0b20iO31zOjg6ImZyYWdtZW50IjtzOjA6IiI7fQ==) 10. 10.Schünemann H, Brożek J, Guyatt G, Oxman A, editors. GRADE handbook for grading quality of evidence and strength of recommendations. Updated October 2013. The GRADE Working Group, 2013. [https://gdt.gradepro.org/app/handbook/handbook.html](https://gdt.gradepro.org/app/handbook/handbook.html). Accessed 19 Sep 2020. 11. 11.GRADEpro GDT: GRADEpro Guideline Development Tool [Software]. McMaster University, 2020 (developed by Evidence Prime, Inc.). [https://gradepro.org/](https://gradepro.org/). Accessed 19 Sep 2020. 12. 12.Review Manager (RevMan) [Computer program]. Version 5.3, The Cochrane Collaboration, 2020. Available from [https://training.cochrane.org/online-learning/core-software-cochrane-reviews/revman](https://training.cochrane.org/online-learning/core-software-cochrane-reviews/revman). Accessed 1 May 2020. 13. 13. Rajeev K Rail, K Govardhan, Ajay K Sharma. Management of Peenasa/Pratishyaya Roga (Rhinitis/Sinusitis) With Nasya Karma – A Clinical Study. Journal of Research in Ayurveda and Siddha. 2002;23:1-2:81-90 14. 14.Nagraja JM. Role of Vidanga Taila Nasya in the management of Kaphaja Shira Shoola W.S.R. to Chronic Maxillary Sinusitis. In: Digital library. Rajiv Gandhi University of health sciences, Bangalore. 2009. [http://52.172.27.147:8080/jspui/bitstream/123456789/5108/1/Nagaraja%20J%20M.pdf](http://52.172.27.147:8080/jspui/bitstream/123456789/5108/1/Nagaraja%20J%20M.pdf). Accessed 08 Feb 2020 15. 15.Chaudhari V, Rajagopala M, Mistry S, Vaghela D B. Role of Pradhamana Nasya and Trayodashanga Kwatha in the management of Dushta Pratishyaya with special reference to chronic sinusitis. AYU. 2010; doi:10.4103/0974-8520.77165. [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.4103/0974-8520.77165&link_type=DOI) 16. 16.Ashwini BN, K Siva Balaji. Role of Trikatu Taila Nasya in the Management of Kaphaja shirashoola w.s.r. to Maxillary Sinusitis. International Ayurvedic Medical Journal. 2015;3:1. 17. 17. Parth P Dave, Kunjal H Bhatta, Vaghela DB, Dhiman KS. Role of Vyaghri Haritaki Avaleha and Anu Taila Nasya in the management of Dushta Pratishyaya (Chronic Sinusitis). IJAM journal. 2016;7:1. 18. 18. Sarmah Jayanta, Mangal Gopesh. A clinical study to evaluate the efficacy of Vamana and Nasya Karma in the management of Peenasa w.s.r. to Sinusitis. Journal of Ayurveda. 2017;3:66–73. 19. 19.Mansi Sharma A. A clinical study on the efficacy of Ardhanarishvara Rasa Nasya and Nimbadi Guggulu in the management of Kaphaja Shiroroga w.s.r. to sinusitis, Journal of Ayurveda. 2018;4:66–72. 20. 20. Sanjay Sukhdeorao Thoka, DS Mishra, MK Shandilya. Comparative study of Vamana & Nasya Karma in the management of Peenasa Roga (Sinusitis) JRAS. 2008;29-2:29-38. 21. 21.Sree Kumar K. Role of Anutaila Nasya and Varunadi Ghruita in the management of Dushta Pratishyaya w.s.r. to chronic sinusitis. In: Ayurveda Research Database-ARD. Gujarat Ayurveda University, Jamnagar. 2005. [https://ayurvedahealthcare.info/content/ayurveda-research-database-ard](https://ayurvedahealthcare.info/content/ayurveda-research-database-ard). Accessed 09 Feb 2020. 22. 22. ERHSS Ediriweera, RLYU Rathnayaka, WMSA Premakeerthi, KDCM Weerasinghel. Efficacy of Sri Lankan Traditional Decoction of Katuwelbatu Deduru Katukadi in treatment of Kaphaja Shira Shula (Chronic Sinusitis). AYU. 2010; doi:10.4103/0974-8520.68208. [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.4103/0974-8520.68208&link_type=DOI) 23. 23.Schulz KF, Chalmers I, Hayes RJ, Altman DG. Empirical evidence of bias. Dimensions of methodological quality associated with estimates of treatment effects in controlled trials. JAMA 1995;273(5):408–12. [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1001/jama.1995.03520290060030&link_type=DOI) [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=7823387&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2021%2F03%2F12%2F2021.03.11.21253190.atom) [Web of Science](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=A1995QD20300026&link_type=ISI) 24. 24. Moher David, Hopewell Sally, Schulz Kenneth F, Montori Victor, Gøtzsche Peter C, Devereaux P J et al. CONSORT 2010 Explanation and Elaboration: updated guidelines for reporting parallel group randomised trials BMJ 2010; 340 :c869 [FREE Full Text](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/ijlink/YTozOntzOjQ6InBhdGgiO3M6MTQ6Ii9sb29rdXAvaWpsaW5rIjtzOjU6InF1ZXJ5IjthOjQ6e3M6ODoibGlua1R5cGUiO3M6NDoiRlVMTCI7czoxMToiam91cm5hbENvZGUiO3M6MzoiYm1qIjtzOjU6InJlc2lkIjtzOjE2OiIzNDAvbWFyMjNfMS9jODY5IjtzOjQ6ImF0b20iO3M6NTA6Ii9tZWRyeGl2L2Vhcmx5LzIwMjEvMDMvMTIvMjAyMS4wMy4xMS4yMTI1MzE5MC5hdG9tIjt9czo4OiJmcmFnbWVudCI7czowOiIiO30=) 25. 25.Gagnier JJ, Boon H, Rochon P, Moher D, Barnes J, Bombardier C; CONSORT Group. Reporting randomized, controlled trials of herbal interventions: an elaborated CONSORT statement. Ann Intern Med. 2006 Mar 7;144(5):364–7. doi: 10.7326/0003-4819-144-5-200603070-00013. PMID: 16520478. [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.7326/0003-4819-144-5-200603070-00013&link_type=DOI) [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=16520478&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2021%2F03%2F12%2F2021.03.11.21253190.atom) [Web of Science](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=000235965300008&link_type=ISI) 26. 26.Boutron I, Altman DG, Moher D, Schulz KF, Ravaud P; CONSORT NPT Group. CONSORT Statement for Randomized Trials of Nonpharmacologic Treatments: A 2017 Update and a CONSORT Extension for Nonpharmacologic Trial Abstracts. Ann Intern Med. 2017 Jul 4;167(1):40–47. doi: 10.7326/M17-0046. Epub 2017 Jun 20. PMID: 28630973. [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.7326/M17-0046&link_type=DOI) [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=28630973&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2021%2F03%2F12%2F2021.03.11.21253190.atom) 27. 27.Cheng CW, Wu TX, Shang HC, Li YP, Altman DG, Moher D, Bian ZX; CONSORT-CHM Formulas 2017 Group. CONSORT Extension for Chinese Herbal Medicine Formulas 2017: Recommendations, Explanation, and Elaboration. Ann Intern Med. 2017 Jun 27;167(2):112–121. doi: 10.7326/M16-2977. PMID: 28654980. [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.7326/M16-2977&link_type=DOI) [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=http://www.n&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2021%2F03%2F12%2F2021.03.11.21253190.atom) 28. 28.Chan A-W, Tetzlaff JM, Altman DG, Laupacis A, Gøtzsche PC, Krleža-Jerić K, Hróbjartsson A, Mann H, Dickersin K, Berlin J, Doré C, Parulekar W, Summerskill W, Groves T, Schulz K, Sox H, Rockhold FW, Rennie D, Moher D. SPIRIT 2013 Statement: Defining standard protocol items for clinical trials. Ann Intern Med. 2013;158(3):200–207. [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.7326/0003-4819-158-3-201302050-00583&link_type=DOI) [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=23295957&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2021%2F03%2F12%2F2021.03.11.21253190.atom) [Web of Science](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=000314757900007&link_type=ISI) 29. 29. Loudon Kirsty, Treweek Shaun, Sullivan Frank, Donnan Peter, Thorpe Kevin E, Zwarenstein Merrick et al. The PRECIS-2 tool: designing trials that are fit for purpose. BMJ. 2015; doi: [https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.h2147](https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.h2147). 30. 30.Button, K., Ioannidis, J., Mokrysz, C. et al. Power failure: why small sample size undermines the reliability of neuroscience. Nat Rev Neurosci. 2013; doi: [https://doi.org/10.1038/nrn3475](https://doi.org/10.1038/nrn3475). 31. 31. Seidler Anna Lene, Hunter Kylie E, Cheyne Saskia, Ghersi Davina, Berlin Jesse A, Askie Lisa et al. A guide to prospective meta-analysis. BMJ. 2019. doi: [https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.l5342](https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.l5342). 32. 32.Kirkham JJ, Gorst S, Altman DG, Blazeby JM, Clarke M, Devane D, et al. Core Outcome Set–STAndards for Reporting: The COS-STAR Statement. PLoS Med. 2016; [https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.1002148](https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.1002148).