Evidence map›Paper›PMID 22130869›Full record

Trial reportArchives of dermatological research2012

Effects of single therapeutic doses of promethazine, fexofenadine and olopatadine on psychomotor function and histamine-induced wheal- and flare-responses: a randomized double-blind, placebo-controlled study in healthy volunteers.

Hiroyuki Kamei, Ami Isaji, Yukihiro Noda, Kazuhiro Ishikawa, Koji Senzaki, Kiyofumi Yamada, Kazumitsu Sugiura, Yasushi Tomita, Toshitaka Nabeshima

Open access · hybridAbstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in Archives of dermatological research, 2012. 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
0.9field-weighted citation impact, top 28% of its field
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, 21 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Neurotransmitter Systems in Alzheimer's Disease.Current issues in molecular biology · 2026
    Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

9 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.

Hiroyuki KameiDepartment of Clinical Pharmacy Practice and Health Care Management, Meijo University, Nagoya, Japan.
Ami Isaji
Yukihiro Noda
Kazuhiro Ishikawa
Koji Senzaki
Kiyofumi Yamada
Kazumitsu Sugiura
Yasushi Tomita
Toshitaka Nabeshima
Hokkaido Research Organization · JPMeijo University · JPNagoya University · JPNagoya University Hospital · JP

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Since most first-generation antihistamines have undesirable sedative effects on the central nervous systems (CNS), newer (second-generation) antihistamines have been developed to improve patients' quality of life. However, there are few reports that directly compare the antihistaminic efficacy and impairment of psychomotor functions. We designed a double-blind, placebo controlled, crossover study to concurrently compare the clinical effectiveness of promethazine, a first-generation antihistamine, and fexofenadine and olopatadine, second-generation antihistamines, by measuring their potency as peripheral inhibitors of histamine-induced wheal and flare. Further, we investigated their sedative effects on the CNS using a battery of psychomotor tests. When single therapeutic doses of fexofenadine (60 mg), olopatadine (5 mg) and promethazine (25 mg) were given in a double-blind manner to 24 healthy volunteers, all antihistamines produced a significant reduction in the wheal and flare responses induced by histamine. In the comparison among antihistamines, olopatadine showed a rapid inhibitory effect compared with fexofenadine and promethazine, and had a potent effect compared with promethazine. In a battery of psychomotor assessments using critical flicker fusion, choice reaction time, compensatory tracking, rapid visual information processing and a line analogue rating scale as a subjective assessment of sedation, promethazine significantly impaired psychomotor function. Fexofenadine and olopatadine had no significant effect in any of the psychomotor tests. Promethazine, fexofenadine and olopatadine did not affect behavioral activity, as measured by wrist actigraphy. These results suggest that olopatadine at a therapeutic dose has greater antihistaminergic activity than promethazine, and olopatadine and fexofenadine did not cause cognitive or psychomotor impairment.

Indexed as

AdolescentDibenzoxepinsDouble-Blind MethodFemaleHistamine H1 AntagonistsHumansMaleOlopatadine HydrochloridePromethazinePruritusPsychomotor PerformanceRhinitis, Allergic, SeasonalTerfenadineUrticariaYoung AdultDibenzoxepinsfexofenadineHistamine H1 AntagonistsOlopatadine HydrochloridePromethazineTerfenadine

Identifiers

PMID22130869
PMCPMC3332365
OpenAlexW2093524798

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.