Background
	Filiform needle acupuncture (FNA), 
the most classical and widely applied acupuncture method based on 
traditional Chinese medicine theory, has shown a promising effect in the
 treatment of allergic rhinitis (AR).
	Objective
	We
 aim to comprehensively evaluate the efficacy, safety, 
cost-effectiveness, and patient preference of FNA in the treatment of AR
 by comparing FNA with sham acupuncture, no treatment, and conventional 
medication.
	Search strategy
	Eight 
electronic databases were systematically searched from inception to 
October 14, 2021. Additional studies were acquired from clinical trial 
registration platforms and reference lists.
	Inclusion criteria
	RCTs were included if they compared FNA with either sham acupuncture, no treatment, or conventional medications for AR.
	Data extraction and analysis
	Two
 researchers extracted data independently of each other using a 
predesigned data acquisition form, and results were cross-checked after 
completion. The primary outcome was symptom score (Total Nasal Symptom 
Score or Visual Analog Scale), and the secondary outcomes were the AR 
control questionnaire, quality of life (QoL) score (Different versions 
of Rhinoconjunctivitis Quality of Life Questionnaires), medication score
 (use of rescue medication), mental health score, total IgE, adverse 
event rate, clinical economic indicators, and patient satisfaction 
score. Standardized mean difference (SMD) or mean difference (MD) with 
95% confidence intervals (CIs) was used to calculate the effect size for
 continuous data, while risk ratio with 95% Cis was used for dichotomous
 data.
	Results
	Thirty studies were included
 in this review. Compared with sham acupuncture, FNA significantly 
reduced the symptom score (SMD: –0.29 [–0.43, –0.15]), AR’s impact on 
QoL (SMD: –0.23 [–0.37, –0.08]) and medication score (SMD: –0.3 [–0.49, 
–0.11]). Compared with no treatment, FNA dramatically reduced the 
symptom score (SMD: –0.8 [–1.2, –0.39]) and AR’s impact on QoL (SMD: 
–0.82 [–1.13, –0.52]). There were no increased rates of adverse event 
with FNA compared to sham acupuncture and no treatment. FNA increased 
patient satisfaction and may be cost-effective. Most pieces of evidence 
from the above two comparisons were of high confidence. Moreover, FNA 
significantly outperformed conventional medication in reducing the 
symptom score (SMD: –0.48 [–0.85, –0.1]) and displayed a lower rate of 
adverse events, but the quality of evidence was very low.
	Conclusion
	FNA
 is an effective and safe intervention for AR and can help with symptom 
relief, QoL improvement, reducing medication usage, and increasing 
patient satisfaction. Further studies are needed to verify its 
cost-effectiveness and superiority over conventional medication and the 
best therapeutic strategies.