ReviewIndian journal of dermatology
Updosing of Nonsedating Anti-histamines in Recalcitrant Chronic Urticaria.
Review in Indian journal of dermatology. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 9 citations in OpenAlex.
- Do pharmacists counsel customers about the effects of sedating antihistamines on driving skills? A survey of community pharmacies in Saudi Arabia.The Journal of international medical research · 2019Trial
- Unveiling the immunopharmacological mechanisms of Danggui Yinzi (DGYZ) in treating chronic urticaria: insights from network pharmacology and experimental validation.Chinese medicine · 2025Article
- Treatment of Allergies to Fur Animals.International journal of molecular sciences · 2024Review
- Article
- Efficacy and Safety of Up-dosed Second-generation Antihistamines in Uncontrolled Chronic Spontaneous Urticaria: A Review.The Journal of clinical and aesthetic dermatology · 2023Review
- Diagnosis and Management of Urticaria in Indian Settings: Skin Allergy Research Society's Guideline-2022.Indian journal of dermatologyArticle
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 at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Chronic urticaria (CU) is a persistent, debiliating condition that causes severe impairment on the quality of life (QoL) of patient by interrupting work productivity. Current guidelines recommend second-generation (nonsedating) anti-histamines for the treatment for all forms of urticaria. In patients who do not respond adequately to conventional doses of anti-histamines, it is recommended to increase the dose to up to four times to obtain control. But there are only few controlled studies that have assessed the efficacy and safety of nonsedating anti-histamines. Though sedating histamines are frequently used as an add-on therapy in severe cases, they have a negative impact on QoL by compromising sleep and performance. The use of other suggested therapeutic options (omalizumab, cyclosporine A, montelukast and dapsone) is also limited by paucity of data on their efficacy and adverse effect profile. Second-generation anti-histamines which are relatively safer require more proven data to support their judicious use to improve disease in patients with CU.
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.