Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25501360›Full record

ReviewPloS one2014

Central nervous system effects of the second-generation antihistamines marketed in Japan--review of inter-drug differences using the proportional impairment ratio (PIR)-.

Tatsuya Isomura, Takeshi Kono, Ian Hindmarch, Norimasa Kikuchi, Aya Murakami, Kyoko Inuzuka, Seiji Kawana

Open access · goldAbstract readReview
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in PloS one, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
0.7field-weighted citation impact, top 31% of its field
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

10 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 23 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Brain histamine HPharmacology research & perspectives · 2019
    Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Insights into urticaria in pediatric and adult populations and its management with fexofenadine hydrochloride.Allergy, asthma, and clinical immunology : official journal of the Canadian Society of Allergy and Clinical Immunology · 2022
    Review
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
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

7 authors at 4 institutions in 2 countries.

Tatsuya IsomuraCLINICAL STUDY SUPPORT, Inc., Nagoya, Aichi, Japan; Institute of Medical Science, Tokyo Medical University, Tokyo, Japan.
Takeshi KonoDepartment of Dermatology, Nippon Medical School Chiba-Hokusoh Hospital, Chiba, Japan.
Ian HindmarchUniversity of Surrey, Guildford, Surrey, United Kingdom.
Norimasa KikuchiCLINICAL STUDY SUPPORT, Inc., Nagoya, Aichi, Japan.
Aya MurakamiCLINICAL STUDY SUPPORT, Inc., Nagoya, Aichi, Japan.
Kyoko InuzukaCLINICAL STUDY SUPPORT, Inc., Nagoya, Aichi, Japan.
Seiji KawanaDepartment of Dermatology, Nippon Medical School, Tokyo, Japan.
Chiba Hokusou Hospital · JPNippon Medical School · JPTokyo Medical University · JPUniversity of Surrey · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundSecond-generation antihistamines (AHs) have, in general, fewer sedative effects than the first-generation. However, important inter-drug differences remain in the degree of cognitive and/or psychomotor impairment. The extent to which a particular compound causes disruption can be conveniently compared, to all other AHs, using the Proportional Impairment Ratio (PIR). Although the PIR can differentiate the relative impairment caused by individual drugs, there is no indication of the reliability of the ratios obtained.

objectiveTo calculate the PIRs -together with 95% confidence intervals (CIs), as an index of reliability- and compare AHs currently, or soon to be, available in Japan, with respect to their intrinsic capacity to cause impairment.

methodsResults from studies of cetirizine, desloratadine, ebastine, fexofenadine, levocetirizine, loratadine, mequitazine, and olopatadine were included in the PIR calculations. All data utilised came from crossover studies in healthy volunteers which were randomised and placebo and positive-internal controlled. Existing databases from studies reporting the sedative effects of AHs on objective (speed, accuracy, memory) and subjective (feeling) psychometrics were augmented, via results from suitable studies published after the previous reviews. The null value for a PIR was one.

resultsA total of 45 studies were finally included for this review. Of the AHs assessed, fexofenadine, ebastine, and levocetirizine showed a PIR for objective tests of 0. However, only fexofenadine (PIR = 0.49) had an upper limit of the 95% CI of less than 1. Fexofenadine, levocetirizine, desloratadine, olopatadine, loratadine, and mequitazine all had a PIR for subjective ratings of 0, but the upper limits of the 95% CIs were all in excess of 1, although fexofenadine (PIR = 2.57) was the lowest.

conclusionsThe results show that there are differences between second-generation AHs in the extent of sedation produced. However, subjective ratings indicate that patients may not necessarily be aware of this.

Indexed as

Central Nervous SystemHistamine H1 Antagonists, Non-SedatingHumansJapanMarketingPsychomotor DisordersHistamine H1 Antagonists, Non-Sedating

Identifiers

PMID25501360
PMCPMC4264760
OpenAlexW2052990038

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.