ReviewCurrent allergy and asthma reports2015
Urticaria Guidelines: Consensus and Controversies in the European and American Guidelines.
Review in Current allergy and asthma reports, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 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
12 citing papers in PubMed.
- A critical case of anaphylaxis triggered by exercise in a pediatric asthma patient.BMC pediatrics · 2025Article
- Clinical efficacy of Zhiyang Xiaozhen granules combined with second-generation antihistamine in the treatment of chronic urticaria.Zhong nan da xue xue bao. Yi xue ban = Journal of Central South University. Medical sciences · 2024Article
- Socio-economic burden and resource utilisation in Italian patients with chronic urticaria: 2-year data from the AWARE study.The World Allergy Organization journal · 2020Article
- Chronic urticaria treatment patterns and changes in quality of life: AWARE study 2-year results.The World Allergy Organization journal · 2020Article
- Chronic Urticaria: An Overview of Treatment and Recent Patents.Recent patents on inflammation & allergy drug discovery · 2019Review
- TOXICAN: a guide for grading dermatological adverse events of cancer treatments.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2018Article
- Management of chronic spontaneous urticaria: a worldwide perspective.The World Allergy Organization journal · 2018Article
- Analysis of the changes in Th9 cells and related cytokines in the peripheral blood of spontaneous urticaria patients.Biomedical reports · 2017Article
- Current and future therapies for the treatment of histamine-induced angioedema.Expert opinion on pharmacotherapy · 2017Review
- Knowledge and management of chronic spontaneous urticaria in Latin America: a cross-sectional study in Ecuador.The World Allergy Organization journal · 2017Article
- Effectiveness and safety of antihistamines up to fourfold or higher in treatment of chronic spontaneous urticaria.Clinical and translational allergy · 2017Article
- Anaphylaxis in a 4-year-old male caused by contact with grasses: a case report.The World Allergy Organization journal · 2017Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Urticaria can present acutely and be self-limiting or become chronic and persist for weeks, months, or years. In either case, the condition may have a significant impact on the patient's quality of life. Two major consensus groups, the EAACI/WAO and the AAAAI/ACAAI Joint Task Force, have written guidelines on the diagnosis and management of urticaria. While both agree on most points regarding the definition, general evaluation, and treatment, there are some differences which exist. The guidelines, which are written to assist both primary practitioners and specialists in managing their patients with urticaria, have been developed based on scientific evidence, and when insufficient evidence is available, then recommendations are based on expert consensus opinion. The majority of the differences between the two guidelines pertain to recommendations based on expert opinion because of weak scientific evidence. Within this document, we compare the recommendations of these two groups, highlighting the key similarities and differences.
Indexed as
Identifiers
26141580What 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.