Evidence map›Paper›PMID 23723474›Full record

ArticleIndian journal of dermatology2013

Pharmacology of antihistamines.

Martin K Church, Diana S Church

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Indian journal of dermatology, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 61 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
61citing papers in PubMed, 2 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

61 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Oral H1 antihistamines as 'add-on' therapy to topical treatment for eczema.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2019
    Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Article
  7. Trip killers: Addressing a critical knowledge gap in psychedelic research.Journal of psychopharmacology (Oxford, England) · 2026
    Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. CMAJ : Canadian Medical Association journal = journal de l'Association medicale canadienne · 2026
    Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. The use of antihistamine and antihistamine-like drugs for cancer-related pain: a narrative review.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2025
    Review
  14. Management of anaphylaxis.CMAJ : Canadian Medical Association journal = journal de l'Association medicale canadienne · 2025
    Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Diphenhydramine: A Review of Its Clinical Applications and Potential Adverse Effect Profile.The journal of pediatric pharmacology and therapeutics : JPPT : the official journal of PPAG · 2025
    Article
  19. Review
  20. Treatment of Allergies to Fur Animals.International journal of molecular sciences · 2024
    Review

1 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

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.

Martin K ChurchAllergie-Centrum-Charité/ECARF, Charité-Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Germany.
Diana S Church

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

H1-antihistamines, the mainstay of treatment for urticaria, were developed from anticholinergic drugs more than 70 years ago. They act as inverse agonists rather than antagonists of histamine H1-receptors which are members of the G-protein family. The older first generation H1-antihistamines penetrate readily into the brain to cause sedation, drowsiness, fatigue and impaired concentration and memory causing detrimental effects on learning and examination performance in children and on impairment of the ability of adults to work and drive. Their use should be discouraged. The newer second-generation H1-antihistamines are safer, cause less sedation and are more efficacious. Three drugs widely used for symptomatic relief in urticaria, desloratadine, levocetirizine and fexofenadine are highlighted in this review. Of these levocetirizine and fexofenadine are the most potent in humans in vivo. However, levocetirizine may cause somnolence in susceptible individuals, whereas fexofenadine has a relatively short duration of action and may be required to be given twice daily for all round daily protection. Although desloratadine is less potent, it has the advantages of rarely causing somnolence and having a long duration of action.

Indexed as

CetirizinedesloratadinefexofenadineH1-antihistamineshydroxyzinelevocetirizineloratadine

Identifiers

PMID23723474
PMCPMC3667286

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-SA
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.