ReviewF1000Research2016
Advances in Understanding and Managing Chronic Urticaria.
Review in F1000Research, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 24 citations in OpenAlex.
- High-dose non-sedating antihistamines are used insufficiently in chronic urticaria patients treated with omalizumab.Clinical and translational allergy · 2021Article
- Impact of mycoplasma pneumonia infection on urticaria: A nationwide, population-based retrospective cohort study in Taiwan.PloS one · 2019Article
- Real-World Characteristics and Treatment Patterns in Patients with Urticaria Initiating Omalizumab in the United States.Journal of managed care & specialty pharmacy · 2018Observational
- [Efficacy of phototherapy in chronic urticaria].Der Hautarzt; Zeitschrift fur Dermatologie, Venerologie, und verwandte Gebiete · 2017Article
- Pruritus: an overview. What drives people to scratch an itch?The Ulster medical journal · 2016Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 1 institution in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
There have been recent advances in the classification and management of chronic urticaria. The new term chronic spontaneous urticaria (CSU) has replaced chronic idiopathic urticaria and chronic autoimmune urticaria. In addition, chronic inducible urticaria (CINDU) has replaced physical urticaria and includes other forms of inducible urticaria, such as cholinergic and aquagenic urticaria. Furthermore, novel research has resulted in a new understanding with guidelines being revised in the past year by both the American Academy of Allergy, Asthma, and Immunology (AAAAI) and the European Academy of Allergy and Clinical Immunology (EAACI)/Global Allergy and Asthma European Network (GA (2)LEN)/European Dermatology Forum (EDF)/World Allergy Organization (WAO). There are some differences in the recommendations, which will be discussed, but the core updates are common to both groups. The basic treatment for chronic urticaria involves second-generation non-sedating non-impairing H 1 antihistamines as first-line treatment. This is followed by up to a 4-fold increase in the licensed dose of these H 1 antihistamines. The major therapeutic advance in recent years has been in third-line treatment with omalizumab, a humanized monoclonal anti-immunoglobulin E (anti-IgE) antibody that prevents binding of IgE to the high-affinity IgE receptor. Several multicenter randomized controlled trials have shown safety and efficacy of omalizumab for CSU. There are also some small studies showing efficacy of omalizumab in CINDU. While there were previously many treatment options which were lacking in strong evidence, we are moving into an era where the treatment algorithm for chronic urticaria is simplified and contains more evidence-based, effective, and less toxic treatment options.
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.