ArticleMedical science monitor : international medical journal of experimental and clinical research2014
A survey of clinical features of allergic rhinitis in adults.
Article in Medical science monitor : international medical journal of experimental and clinical research, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 19 citations in OpenAlex.
- Pattern of uncontrolled allergic rhinitis in a hospital setting of Kinshasa, Democratic Republic of Congo.Immunity, inflammation and disease · 2019Trial
- Prevalence and influencing factors of allergic rhinitis in Xi'an: A 2022 survey.Asia Pacific allergy · 2026Article
- Allergic rhinitis in college students at Dongguan: a cross-sectional survey on disease burden, knowledge, and self-management.Frontiers in allergy · 2025Article
- Article
- A survey on the perception of allergy specialists about the reimbursed grass pollen tablets for seasonal allergic rhinitis in Italy.Clinical and molecular allergy : CMA · 2017Article
- Utility of the Atopy Patch Test in the Diagnosis of Allergic Rhinitis.Iranian journal of otorhinolaryngology · 2016Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundAllergic rhinitis (AR) has high prevalence and substantial socio-economic burden. MATERIAL/
methodsThe study included 35 Italian Centers recruiting an overall number of 3383 adult patients with rhinitis (48% males, 52% females, mean age 29.1, range 18-45 years). For each patient, the attending physician had to fill in a standardized questionnaire, covering, in particular, some issues such as the ARIA classification of allergic rhinitis (AR), the results of skin prick test (SPT), the kind of treatment, the response to treatment, and the satisfaction with treatment.
resultsOut of the 3383 patients with rhinitis, 2788 (82.4%) had AR: 311 (11.5%) had a mild intermittent, 229 (8.8%) a mild persistent, 636 (23.5%) a moderate-severe intermittent, and 1518 (56.1%) a moderate-severe persistent form. The most frequently used drugs were oral antihistamines (77.1%) and topical corticosteroids (60.8%). The response to treatment was judged as excellent in 12.2%, good in 41.3%, fair in 31.2%, poor in 14.5%, and very bad in 0.8% of subjects. The rate of treatment dissatisfaction was significantly higher in patients with moderate-to-severe AR than in patients with mild AR (p<0.0001). Indication to allergen immunotherapy (AIT) was significantly more frequent (p<0.01) in patients with severe AR than with mild AR.
conclusionsThese findings confirm the appropriateness of ARIA guidelines in classifying the AR patients and the association of severe symptoms with unsuccessful drug treatment. The optimal targeting of patients to be treated with AIT needs to be reassessed.
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.