ReviewHNO2016
[Insect venom allergies : Update 2016 for otorhinolaryngologists].
Review in HNO, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed, 0 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Due to the increasing incidence of hymenoptera venom allergies and the potentially life-threatening reactions, it is important for otolaryngologists working in allergology to have an understanding of modern diagnostic and treatment standards for this allergic disease. Molecular diagnosis with recombinant single allergens from bee and wasp venom components improves the diagnostics of insect venom allergies, particularly in patients with double-positive extract-based test results. Detection of specific sensitizations to bee or wasp venom enables double sensitizations to be better distinguished from cross-reactivity. Based on patient history and test results, the patient is initially advised on avoidance strategies and prescribed an emergency medication kit. Then, the indication for allergen-specific immunotherapy (AIT) is evaluated. The dose-increase phase can be performed using conventional, cluster, rush, or ultra-rush schedules, whereby rapid desensitization (rush AIT) performed in the clinic seems to be particularly effective as initial 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.