Evidence map›Paper›PMID 23650298›Full record

SynthesisPediatrics2013

Allergen-specific immunotherapy for pediatric asthma and rhinoconjunctivitis: a systematic review.

Julia M Kim, Sandra Y Lin, Catalina Suarez-Cuervo, Yohalakshmi Chelladurai, Murugappan Ramanathan, Jodi B Segal, Nkiruka Erekosima

Open access · bronzeAbstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Pediatrics, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 31 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
31citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
14.6field-weighted citation impact, top 1% 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

31 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 164 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Clinical Practice Guideline: Immunotherapy for Inhalant Allergy.Otolaryngology--head and neck surgery : official journal of American Academy of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery · 2024
    Guideline
  2. Pooled it
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Observational
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Review
  11. EAACI Allergen Immunotherapy User's Guide.Pediatric allergy and immunology : official publication of the European Society of Pediatric Allergy and Immunology · 2020
    Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Immunotherapy and Asthma in Children.Frontiers in pediatrics · 2018
    Review
  15. Review
  16. Review
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. Review
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

7 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.

Julia M KimDepartment of Pediatrics, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD 21287, USA. jkim315@jhmi.edu
Sandra Y Lin
Catalina Suarez-Cuervo
Yohalakshmi Chelladurai
Murugappan Ramanathan
Jodi B Segal
Nkiruka Erekosima
General Department of Preventive Medicine · VNJohns Hopkins Medicine · USOffice of Adolescent Health · US

Funding

Training in Comparative Effectiveness Research to Improve Family Health ServicesT32HS019488 · AHRQ · JOHNS HOPKINS UNIVERSITY · PI DUGGAN, ANNE K · 2010 to 2010
$866k
AHRQ HHS T32 HS019488AHRQ HHS T32HS019488PHS HHS 290-2007-10061-1
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

BACKGROUND AND

objectiveSubcutaneous immunotherapy (SCIT) is approved in the United States for the treatment of pediatric asthma and rhinitis; sublingual immunotherapy (SLIT) does not have regulatory approval but is used in clinical practice. The objective of this study was to systematically review the evidence regarding the efficacy and safety of SCIT and SLIT for the treatment of pediatric asthma and allergic rhinoconjunctivitis.

methodsTwo independent reviewers selected articles for inclusion, extracted data, and graded the strength of evidence for each clinical outcome. All studies were randomized controlled trials of children with allergic asthma or rhinoconjunctivitis treated with SCIT or an aqueous formulation of SLIT. Data sources were Medline, Embase, LILACS, CENTRAL, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials through May 2012.

resultsIn 13 trials, 920 children received SCIT or usual care; in 18 studies, 1583 children received SLIT or usual care. Three studies compared SCIT with SLIT head-to-head in 135 children. The strength of evidence is moderate that SCIT improves asthma and rhinitis symptoms and low that SCIT improves conjunctivitis symptoms and asthma medication scores. Strength of evidence is high that SLIT improves asthma symptoms and moderate that SLIT improves rhinitis and conjunctivitis symptoms and decreases medication usage. The evidence is low to support SCIT over SLIT for improving asthma or rhinitis symptoms or medication usage. Local reactions were frequent with SCIT and SLIT. There was 1 report of anaphylaxis with SCIT.

conclusionsEvidence supports the efficacy of both SCIT and SLIT for the treatment of asthma and rhinitis in children.

Indexed as

Administration, SublingualAdolescentAsthmaChildChild, PreschoolConjunctivitis, AllergicDesensitization, ImmunologicHumansRhinitis, Allergic, SeasonalTreatment Outcomeallergen-specific immunotherapyasthmapediatricrhinitisrhinoconjunctivitissubcutaneous immunotherapysublingual immunotherapysystematic review

Identifiers

PMID23650298
PMCPMC4074663
OpenAlexW2105187519

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.