ReviewCurrent allergy and asthma reports2006
Evaluation of allergen vaccine potency.
Review in Current allergy and asthma reports, 2006. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Multiple grass mixes as opposed to single grasses for allergen immunotherapy in allergic rhinitis.Clinical and experimental allergy : journal of the British Society for Allergy and Clinical Immunology · 2013Review
- Immunotherapy preparation guidelines, rules, and regulation.Current allergy and asthma reports · 2013Review
- Sensitization to timothy grass pollen allergenic molecules in children.Multidisciplinary respiratory medicine · 2013Article
- New types of immunotherapy in children.Current allergy and asthma reports · 2008Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The development of reliable and clinically relevant potency assays is essential to the practice of safe and effective allergen-specific immunotherapy. Allergen standardization in the United States is based on the establishment of a national reference assigned with a biological potency unit to which manufacturers' products are compared using validated relative potency assays. This ensures, at least with standardized allergen vaccines, comparability between lots used in clinical practice. Recent progress in the ability to measure the specific allergen content of allergen vaccines has led to its application in monitoring consistency and characterizing allergen preparations. More recently, the "major allergen" content of allergen vaccines has become a means to compare extracts from different manufacturers and to recommend immunotherapy dosing regimens. At the same time, qualitative differences exist between manufacturers' products, and most allergen vaccines used in clinical practice are nonstandardized. Therefore, this approach can be confusing and is misleading. The establishment of additional allergen reference standards and the development of reliable, accurate, and clinically relevant potency assays are urgently needed.
Indexed as
Identifiers
16899202What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.