Evidence map›Paper›PMID 17566806›Full record

ArticleHNO2007

[New generation antihistamines as monotherapy or in combination. What is the relevance for daily clinical routine for allergic rhinoconjunctivitis].

R Mösges, J Köberlein

Abstract readControlled Clinical TrialEnglish Abstract
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in HNO, 2007. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

R MösgesInstitut für Medizinische Statistik, Informatik und Epidemiologie der Universität zu Köln (IMSIE), Kerpener Str. 62, 50937, Köln, Deutschland. ralph@moesges.de
J Köberlein

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe guidelines of German and European associations of allergology recommend the treatment of severe allergic rhinitis with a combination of oral antihistamines and nasal steroids. Many patients face this option rather skeptically, so that ENT specialists mostly use antihistamine monotherapy with a higher dosage. This increased dose may cause drowsiness, as has been demonstrated for cetirizine and loratadine. However, ebastine is a non-sedating antihistamine. Furthermore, it has been shown that improved clinical efficacy can be attained with an increased dosage of 20 mg daily in comparison to the usual dosage of 10 mg/day without increasing the rate of side effects.

methodsIn this prospective post-marketing survey, the treatment of 4,307 patients with allergic rhinitis was documented during the pollen season 2005. The severity of rhinitis symptoms and satisfaction with the treatment were recorded.

resultsTreatment with 20 mg ebastine daily as monotherapy led to a significantly greater reduction in symptoms (P=0.002) than the combination therapy.

conclusionThis outcome could be attributed to an assumed better compliance in patients with monotherapy.

Indexed as

Adrenal Cortex HormonesAdultButyrophenonesConjunctivitisDrug CombinationsFemaleGermanyHistamine H1 AntagonistsHumansMalePiperidinesPractice Patterns, Physicians'PrevalenceRhinitis, Allergic, SeasonalTreatment OutcomeAdrenal Cortex HormonesButyrophenonesDrug CombinationsebastineHistamine H1 AntagonistsPiperidines

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.