ArticleJournal of exposure science & environmental epidemiology2014
A side-by-side comparison of three allergen sampling methods in settled house dust.
Article in Journal of exposure science & environmental epidemiology, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- A novel ambient air sampler for detection of allergens and endotoxin.The journal of allergy and clinical immunology. Global · 2026Article
- Sampling Devices for Indoor Allergen Exposure: Pros and Cons.Current allergy and asthma reports · 2019Review
- Comparison of allergens collected from furnace filters and vacuum floor dust.Annals of allergy, asthma & immunology : official publication of the American College of Allergy, Asthma, & Immunology · 2017Article
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 5 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Understanding allergen exposure and potential relationships with asthma requires allergen sampling methods, but methods have yet to be standardized. We compared allergen measurements from dust collected from 200 households with asthmatics and conducted a side-by-side vacuum sampling of settled dust in each home's kitchen, living room and subject's bedroom by three methods (EMM, HVS4 and AIHA). Each sample was analyzed for dust mite, cockroach, mouse, rat, cat and dog allergens. The number of samples with sufficient dust mass for allergen analysis was significantly higher for Eureka Mighty Mite (EMM) and high volume small surface sampler (HVS4) compared with American Industrial Hygiene Association (AIHA) in all rooms and surfaces tested (all P<0.05). The allergen concentration (weight of allergen divided by total weight of dust sampled) measured by the EMM and HVS4 methods was higher than that measured by the AIHA. Allergen loadings (weight of allergen divided by surface area sampled) were significantly higher for HVS4 than for AIHA and EMM. Cockroach and rat allergens were rarely detected via any method. The EMM method is most likely to collect sufficient dust from surfaces in the home and is relatively practical and easy. The AIHA and HVS4 methods suffer from insufficient dust collection and/or difficulty in use.
Indexed as
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.