ArticleThe journal of allergy and clinical immunology. In practice
Adherence with allergen immunotherapy labeling guidelines.
Article in The journal of allergy and clinical immunology. In practice. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundLittle is known about the adherence rate to allergen immunotherapy (AIT) labeling guidelines.
objectiveTo assess adherence to labeling guidelines of AIT Practice Parameter 2011 at University of Michigan Health Service.
methodsAIT vials of 320 patients who received their care at the University of Michigan Health Service were reviewed. Data collected looked at patient identifiers (PI), concentrations in volume/volume (v/v) format, color coding, allergen content, expiration date and instructions about AIT dosing, and systemic reaction treatment. Data were analyzed by using χ(2) test and the Fisher exact test and logistic regression.
resultsOf 238 non-university formulated labels, 65% had 2 PIs, 62% had a v/v concentration, 41% had color coding, 71% had the content listed, and 100% had a recorded expiration date. Only 21% had all 5 recommended components. All 82 University vials had 5 components. Labels with 2 PIs were more likely to have a v/v concentration with its corresponding color coding (odds ratio [OR] 3.84 [95% CI, 1.9-7.7]; P < .001). Labels that specified the extract's content were more likely to be color coded or to have a v/v concentration listed (OR 6.3 [95% CI, 3.4-11.8]; P < .001). For all AIT vials, complete labels were significantly more likely to have a clear buildup schedule (OR 9.6 [95% CI, 4.2-23.2]; P < .001), dosing adjustment after a missed dose (OR 8.2 [95% CI, 3.4-19.8]; P < .001) or after a reaction (OR 13.7 [95% CI, 7.8-2.1]; P < .001), and clear systemic reaction treatment instructions (OR 9.7 [95% CI, 7.8-24.1]; P < .001).
conclusionFewer than 25% of the nonuniversity prescribers adhered to AIT practice parameters 5 years after publication. Recording 2 PIs, the v/v concentration, or the color coding increased the likelihood of having a complete label. Complete label contents were associated with clear instructions about AIT dosing and reaction treatment and/or dose adjustments.
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.