ReviewJournal of asthma and allergy2015
Stinging insect allergy: current perspectives on venom immunotherapy.
Review in Journal of asthma and allergy, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 21 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
21 citing papers in PubMed, 55 citations in OpenAlex.
- Diagnostic Accuracy of Tests for Hymenoptera Venom Hypersensitivity: A Systematic Review and Bayesian Meta-Analysis Protocol.Health science reports · 2026Article
- Observational
- Allergen immunotherapy.Allergy, asthma, and clinical immunology : official journal of the Canadian Society of Allergy and Clinical Immunology · 2024Review
- Life-threatening antibodies: The discovery of anaphylaxis.Immunological reviews · 2024Review
- Article
- The role of molecular diagnosis in anaphylactic patients with dual or triple-sensitization to Hymenoptera venoms.Allergy, asthma, and clinical immunology : official journal of the Canadian Society of Allergy and Clinical Immunology · 2024Article
- Skin prick tests are not useful for the qualification for venom immunotherapy in children.The World Allergy Organization journal · 2023Article
- Venom immunotherapy: safety and tolerability of the build-up phase with depot versus aqueous preparations.Clinical and experimental allergy : journal of the British Society for Allergy and Clinical Immunology · 2022Article
- Diagnosis ofBiomedicines · 2022Review
- A Review of Honeybee Venom Allergens and Allergenicity.International journal of molecular sciences · 2021Review
- Synthesis of anti-allergic drugs.RSC advances · 2020Review
- Precision Medicine in Hymenoptera Venom Allergy: Diagnostics, Biomarkers, and Therapy of Different Endotypes and Phenotypes.Frontiers in immunology · 2020Review
- Hymenoptera Venom Allergy: How Does Venom Immunotherapy Prevent Anaphylaxis From Bee and Wasp Stings?Frontiers in immunology · 2019Review
- CD45 exclusion- and cross-linking-based receptor signaling together broaden FcεRI reactivity.Science signaling · 2018Article
- Observational
- Immunology of Bee Venom.Clinical reviews in allergy & immunology · 2018Review
- Allergen-specific immunotherapy.Allergy, asthma, and clinical immunology : official journal of the Canadian Society of Allergy and Clinical Immunology · 2018Review
- A review on Respiratory allergy caused by insects.Bioinformation · 2018Article
- Current state of follow-up care for patients with Hymenoptera venom anaphylaxis in southwest Germany: Major impact of early information.Allergo journal international · 2018Article
- Allergen-specific immunotherapy of Hymenoptera venom allergy - also a matter of diagnosis.Human vaccines & immunotherapeutics · 2017Review
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 at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Systemic allergic reactions to insect stings affect up to 5% of the population during their lifetime, and up to 32% of beekeepers. Such reactions can be fatal, albeit very rarely, and fear of a further systemic reaction (SR) can lead to significant anxiety and quality of life impairment. A recent Cochrane systematic review confirmed that venom immunotherapy (VIT) is an effective treatment for people who have had a systemic allergic reaction to an insect sting. VIT reduces risk of a further SR (relative risk 0.10, 95% confidence interval 0.03-0.28), but VIT also reduces risk of a future large local reaction, and significantly improves disease-specific quality of life. However, health economic analysis showed that VIT is generally not cost effective for preventing future SRs; most people are stung infrequently, most SRs resolve without long-term consequences, and a fatal outcome is extremely rare. VIT only becomes cost effective if one is stung frequently (eg, beekeepers) or if quality of life improvement is considered. Thus, for most people with insect sting allergy, anxiety and quality of life impairment should be the overriding consideration when making treatment decisions, highlighting the importance of a patient-centered approach. Areas which need to be explored in future research include efforts to improve the safety and convenience of VIT such as the use of sublingual immunotherapy; quality of life effects of venom allergy in children and adolescents as well as their parents; and the optimal duration of treatment.
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.