ReviewCurrent allergy and asthma reports2014
Venom immunotherapy: an updated review.
Review in Current allergy and asthma reports, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 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
9 citing papers in PubMed, 25 citations in OpenAlex.
- Efficacy and safety of subcutaneous venom immunotherapy in children: A 24-year experience in a pediatric tertiary care center.Pediatric allergy and immunology : official publication of the European Society of Pediatric Allergy and Immunology · 2025Article
- Article
- Venom immunotherapy and difficulties encountered before and during immunotherapy: Double sensitization, systemic reactions, treatment with omalizumab, and high dose VIT.Turkish journal of medical sciences · 2022Article
- The efficacy of oral and subcutaneous antigen-specific immunotherapy in murine cow's milk- and peanut allergy models.Clinical and translational allergy · 2017Article
- Review
- VenomKB, a new knowledge base for facilitating the validation of putative venom therapies.Scientific data · 2015Article
- Review
- Stinging insect allergy: current perspectives on venom immunotherapy.Journal of asthma and allergy · 2015Review
- Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Venom immunotherapy (VIT) is the most effective form of specific immunotherapy to date. Hitherto, several relevant queries remain unanswered, namely optimal doses, duration, and means of assessment. Important progress has been lately made in terms of diagnosis by means of component-resolved diagnosis. Moreover, basophil activation test results in patients with negative serum immunoglobulin E (IgE) and skin prick test confer this technique a promising future, although these outcomes shall be considered with caution. This review aims to unravel the important advances made on diagnosis, management, and prognosis and also focuses on several undetermined aspects of VIT.
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.