Evidence map›Paper›PMID 15495009›Full record

SynthesisThe Cochrane database of systematic reviews2004

House dust mite control measures for asthma.

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

Abstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in The Cochrane database of systematic reviews, 2004. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 26 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
26citing papers in PubMed, 4 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

26 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 85 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. House dust mite control measures for asthma.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2008
    Pooled it
  3. Guideline
  4. Feather vs. non-feather bedding for asthma.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2000
    Pooled it
  5. Trial
  6. Trial
  7. House dust mite allergen avoidance and self-management in allergic patients with asthma: randomised controlled trial.The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 2007
    Trial
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Global strategies for reducing the burden from asthma.Primary care respiratory journal : journal of the General Practice Airways Group · 2013
    Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Dust mite control measures don't help asthma patients.The Journal of family practice · 2008
    Article
  20. Are we getting enough allergens?International archives of allergy and immunology · 2008
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.

P C GøtzscheNordic Cochrane Centre, Rigshospitalet, Dept. 7112, Blegdamsvej 9, Copenhagen Ø, Denmark, 2100.
H K Johansen
L M Schmidt
M L Burr
Rigshospitalet · DKUniversity of Wales · GB

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.

objectivesTo assess the effects of reducing exposure to house dust mite antigens in the homes of people with mite-sensitive asthma. SEARCH STRATEGY: Cochrane Airways Group trials register, and PubMed and The Cochrane Library (last searches June 2004), reference lists. 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

resultsForty-nine trials (2733 patients) were included; the number of patients has more than doubled since the last version of this review. Thirty-one trials assessed physical methods, ten assessed chemical methods, and eight a combination of chemical and physical methods. Despite the fact that many trials were of poor quality and would be expected to exaggerate the reported effect, we did not find an effect of the interventions. For the most frequently reported outcome, peak flow in the morning (1339 patients), the standardised mean difference was -0.02 (95% confidence interval (CI) -0.13 to 0.08). There were no statistically significant differences either in number of patients improved (relative risk 1.01, 95% CI 0.80 to 1.27), asthma symptom scores (standardised mean difference -0.01, 95% CI -0.10 to 0.13), or in medication usage (standardised mean difference -0.05, 95% CI -0.18 to 0.09). REVIEWERS'

conclusionsChemical and physical methods aimed at reducing exposure to house dust mite allergens cannot be recommended. It is doubtful whether further studies, similar to the ones in our meta-analysis, are worthwhile. If other types of studies are considered, they should be methodologically rigorous and use other methods than those used so far, with careful monitoring of mite exposure and relevant clinical outcomes.

Indexed as

Environment, ControlledInsecticidesAllergensAnimalsAsthmaDustHumansMitesRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicAllergensDustInsecticides

Identifiers

PMID15495009
OpenAlexW4210535112

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.