ArticleClinical and experimental immunology2015
C1 inhibitor deficiency: 2014 United Kingdom consensus document.
Article in Clinical and experimental immunology, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 14 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
14 citing papers in PubMed, 32 citations in OpenAlex.
- Prophylaxis in hereditary angioedema: a United Kingdom Delphi consensus.Clinical and experimental immunology · 2024Article
- Long-term Prophylaxis with Androgens in the management of Hereditary Angioedema (HAE) in emerging countries.Orphanet journal of rare diseases · 2022Review
- Co-occurrence between C1 esterase inhibitor deficiency and autoimmune disease: a systematic literature review.Allergy, asthma, and clinical immunology : official journal of the Canadian Society of Allergy and Clinical Immunology · 2020Article
- Treatment patterns and healthcare resource utilization among patients with hereditary angioedema in the United States.Orphanet journal of rare diseases · 2018Article
- Real-world outcomes in hereditary angioedema: first experience from the Icatibant Outcome Survey in the United Kingdom.Allergy, asthma, and clinical immunology : official journal of the Canadian Society of Allergy and Clinical Immunology · 2018Article
- Efficacy and safety of an intravenous C1-inhibitor concentrate for long-term prophylaxis in hereditary angioedema.Allergy & rhinology (Providence, R.I.) · 2017Article
- Optimum Use of Acute Treatments for Hereditary Angioedema: Evidence-Based Expert Consensus.Frontiers in medicine · 2017Review
- Breakthrough attacks in patients with hereditary angioedema receiving long-term prophylaxis are responsive to icatibant: findings from the Icatibant Outcome Survey.Allergy, asthma, and clinical immunology : official journal of the Canadian Society of Allergy and Clinical Immunology · 2017Article
- Use of a C1 Inhibitor Concentrate in Adults ≥65 Years of Age with Hereditary Angioedema: Findings from the International BerinertDrugs & aging · 2016Observational
- The Humanistic, Societal, and Pharmaco-economic Burden of Angioedema.Clinical reviews in allergy & immunology · 2016Review
- The Story of Angioedema: from Quincke to Bradykinin.Clinical reviews in allergy & immunology · 2016Review
- Review of Select Practice Parameters, Evidence-Based Treatment Algorithms, and International Guidelines for Hereditary Angioedema.Clinical reviews in allergy & immunology · 2016Review
- Managing the female patient with hereditary angioedema.Women's health (London, England) · 2016Review
- Corrigendum.Clinical and experimental immunology · 2015Article
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issuedCorrigendum.2015
Authors and funding
12 authors at 10 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
C1 inhibitor deficiency is a rare disorder manifesting with recurrent attacks of disabling and potentially life-threatening angioedema. Here we present an updated 2014 United Kingdom consensus document for the management of C1 inhibitor-deficient patients, representing a joint venture between the United Kingdom Primary Immunodeficiency Network and Hereditary Angioedema UK. To develop the consensus, we assembled a multi-disciplinary steering group of clinicians, nurses and a patient representative. This steering group first met in 2012, developing a total of 48 recommendations across 11 themes. The statements were distributed to relevant clinicians and a representative group of patients to be scored for agreement on a Likert scale. All 48 statements achieved a high degree of consensus, indicating strong alignment of opinion. The recommendations have evolved significantly since the 2005 document, with particularly notable developments including an improved evidence base to guide dosing and indications for acute treatment, greater emphasis on home therapy for acute attacks and a strong focus on service organization.
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.