Evidence map›Paper›PMID 11686981›Full record

SynthesisThe Cochrane database of systematic reviews2001

House dust mite control measures for asthma.

P C Gøtzsche, H K Johansen, M L Burr, C Hammarquist

Abstract readSystematic Review
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in The Cochrane database of systematic reviews, 2001. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

7 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. House dust mite control measures for asthma.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2008
    Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Dust mite control measures don't help asthma patients.The Journal of family practice · 2008
    Article
  5. Primary asthma prevention: is it possible?Current allergy and asthma reports · 2008
    Review
  6. Review
  7. Updating guidelines on asthma in adults.BMJ (Clinical research ed.) · 2001
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

P C GøtzscheThe Nordic Cochrane Centre, Rigshospitalet, Blegdamsvej 9, Copenhagen Ø, Denmark, 2100. p.c.gotzsche@cochrane.dk
H K Johansen
M L Burr
C Hammarquist

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe major allergen in house dust comes from mites. Chemical, physical and combined methods of reducing mite allergen levels are intended to reduce asthma symptoms in people who are sensitive to house dust mites.

objectivesThe objective of this review is to assess the effects of reducing exposure to house dust mite antigens in the homes of mite-sensitive asthmatics, assessing chemical and physical methods separately and together. SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched the Cochrane Airways Group trials register, checked reference lists of articles and hand-searched Respiration (1980 to 1996) and Clinical and Experimental Allergy (1980 to 1996). The Cochrane Library is searched every three months. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised trials of mite control measures vs placebo or no treatment in asthmatic people known to be sensitive to house dust mites. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two reviewers applied the trial inclusion criteria, assessed their quality and extracted the data independently. Study authors were contacted to clarify information. MAIN

resultsTwenty-nine trials (939 patients in the analyses) were included, with two trials awaiting assessment. Nine trials assessed chemical methods alone, 15 physical methods alone, and 5 a combination of chemical and physical methods. Overall, there was no statistically significant difference improvement of asthma (relative risk 1.04, 95% confidence interval 0.83 to 1.31), asthma symptom scores (standardised mean difference -0.07, 95% confidence interval -0.35 to 0.22), medication usage (standardised mean difference -0.14, 95% confidence interval -0.43 to 0.15), or peak flow in the morning (standardised mean difference 0.04, 95% confidence interval -0.13 to 0.21). For chemical methods used alone, there was a statistically significantly adverse effect on symptoms (P = 0.03), whereas for physical methods used alone as evaluated in parallel group trials, there was a statistically significant beneficial effect (P = 0.02). However, because of the large number of significance tests we performed, two significant results would be expected to occur by chance. REVIEWER'S

conclusionsCurrently available evidence from controlled trials of chemical and physical approaches to reducing exposure to house dust mite antigens in the homes of mite-sensitive asthmatics does not provide a secure basis for advice and policy. Further trials - one of them very large - are currently in progress. The additional evidence from these studies will help to clarify whether or not the substantial efforts required to implement strategies intended to reduce mites can be expected to yield beneficial effects of a magnitude that people with mite sensitive asthma consider worthwhile.

Indexed as

Environment, ControlledInsecticidesAllergensAnimalsAsthmaDustHumansMitesRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicAllergensDustInsecticides

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.