ArticleClinical and translational allergy2015
A common language to assess allergic rhinitis control: results from a survey conducted during EAACI 2013 Congress.
Article in Clinical and translational allergy, 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, 24 citations in OpenAlex.
- Determinants of uncontrolled allergic rhinitis in Kinshasa hospitals.Frontiers in allergy · 2023Article
- Assessment of Nasal Smear Eosinophil Counts in Allergic Rhinitis: How Useful is it?Indian journal of otolaryngology and head and neck surgery : official publication of the Association of Otolaryngologists of India · 2022Article
- COVID-19, Anosmia, and Allergies: Is There a Relationship? A Pediatric Perspective.Journal of clinical medicine · 2022Article
- The MaDo real-life study of dose adjustment of allergen immunotherapy liquid formulations in an indication of respiratory allergic disease: Reasons, practices, and outcomes.Frontiers in allergy · 2022Article
- mHealth and telemedicine utility in the monitoring of allergic diseases.Frontiers in allergy · 2022Review
- Interventions Delivered in the Community Pharmacy to Manage Allergic Rhinitis- A Systematic Review of the Literature.Pharmacy (Basel, Switzerland) · 2020Review
- MASK 2017: ARIA digitally-enabled, integrated, person-centred care for rhinitis and asthma multimorbidity using real-world-evidence.Clinical and translational allergy · 2018Review
- Rapid onset of action and reduced nasal hyperreactivity: new targets in allergic rhinitis management.Clinical and translational allergy · 2018Review
- The control of allergic rhinitis in real life: a multicenter cross-sectional Italian study.Clinical and molecular allergy : CMA · 2018Article
- Applications and mechanisms of immunotherapy in allergic rhinitis and asthma.Therapeutic advances in respiratory disease · 2017Review
- CHRODIS criteria applied to the MASK (MACVIA-ARIA Sentinel NetworK) Good Practice in allergic rhinitis: a SUNFRAIL report.Clinical and translational allergy · 2017Review
- Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
13 authors at 13 institutions in 10 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe concept of control is gaining importance in the field of allergic rhinitis (AR), with a visual analogue scale (VAS) score being a validated, easy and attractive tool to evaluate AR symptom control. The doctors' perception of a VAS score as a good tool for evaluating AR symptom control is unknown, as is the level of AR control perceived by physicians who treat patients.
methods307 voluntarily selected physicians attending the annual (2013) European Academy of Allergy and Clinical Immunology (EAACI) meeting completed a digital survey. Delegates were asked to (1) estimate how many AR patients/week they saw during the season, (2) estimate the proportion of patients they considered to have well-, partly- and un-controlled AR, (3) communicate how they gauged this control and (4) assess how useful they would find a VAS as a method of gauging control. 257 questionnaires were filled out completely and analysed.
resultsEAACI delegates reported seeing 46.8 [standard deviation (SD) 68.5] AR patients/week during the season. They estimated that 38.7 % (SD 24.0), 34.2 % (SD 20.2) and 20.0 % (SD 16.34) of their AR patients had well-controlled (no AR symptoms), partly-controlled (some AR symptoms), or un-controlled-(moderate/severe AR symptoms) disease despite taking medication [remainder unknown (7.1 %)]. However, AR control was assessed in many ways, including symptom severity (74 %), frequency of day- and night-time symptoms (67 %), activity impairment (57 %), respiratory function monitoring (nasal and/or lung function; 40 %) and incidence of AR exacerbations (50 %). 91 % of delegates felt a simple VAS would be a useful tool to gauge AR symptom control.
conclusionsA substantial portion of patients with AR are perceived as having uncontrolled or partly controlled disease even when treated. A simple VAS score is considered a useful tool to monitor AR control.
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.