ArticleISRN allergy2012
Epicutaneous Immunotherapy Compared with Sublingual Immunotherapy in Mice Sensitized to Pollen (Phleum pratense).
Article in ISRN allergy, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 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
8 citing papers in PubMed, 28 citations in OpenAlex.
- Dose and route of administration determine the efficacy of prophylactic immunotherapy for peanut allergy in a Brown Norway rat model.Frontiers in immunology · 2023Article
- Innovative delivery systems for epicutaneous immunotherapy.Frontiers in immunology · 2023Review
- Pre-Existing Humoral Immunity Enhances Epicutaneously-Administered Allergen Capture by Skin DC and Their Migration to Local Lymph Nodes.Frontiers in immunology · 2021Article
- The Current State of Epicutaneous Immunotherapy for Food Allergy: a Comprehensive Review.Clinical reviews in allergy & immunology · 2018Review
- Differences in phenotype, homing properties and suppressive activities of regulatory T cells induced by epicutaneous, oral or sublingual immunotherapy in mice sensitized to peanut.Cellular & molecular immunology · 2017Article
- Epicutaneous Immunotherapy for Aeroallergen and Food Allergy.Current treatment options in allergy · 2014Review
- New routes for allergen immunotherapy.Human vaccines & immunotherapeutics · 2012Review
- Is The Allergen Really Needed in Allergy Immunotherapy?Current treatment options in allergyReview
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background. The aim of this study was to compare the efficacy of epicutaneous immunotherapy (EPIT) to sublingual immunotherapy (SLIT) in a model of mice sensitized to Phleum pratense pollen. Methods. BALB/c mice were sensitized by sub-cutaneous route to pollen protein extract mixed treated for 8 weeks, using sham, EPIT, or SLIT. Measurements involved the serological response and cytokine profile from reactivated splenocytes, plethysmography after aerosol challenge to pollen, cell, and cytokine contents in the bronchoalveolar lavages (BALs). Results. After immunotherapy, sIgE was significantly decreased in the treated groups compared to sham (P < 0.001), whereas sIgG2a increased with EPIT and SLIT (P < 0.001 and P < 0.005 versus sham). Reactivated splenocytes secreted higher levels of Th2 cytokines with sham (P < 0.01). Penh values were higher in sham than EPIT and SLIT. Eosinophil recruitment in BAL was significantly reduced only by EPIT (P < 0.01). Conclusion. In this model of mice sensitized to pollen, EPIT was at least as efficient as SLIT.
Identifiers
What 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.