ArticleAllergy, asthma & immunology research2017
Usefulness of House Dust Mite Nasal Provocation Test in Asthma.
Article in Allergy, asthma & immunology research, 2017. 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, 10 citations in OpenAlex.
- Local allergic asthma to cat allergens.The journal of allergy and clinical immunology. Global · 2026Article
- Article
- From skin testing to molecular diagnostics: the precision leap in dust mite allergy diagnosis and clinical translation challenges.Frontiers in allergy · 2025Review
- Validity of Skin Prick Test to Bermuda Grass in a desert environment.Acta bio-medica : Atenei Parmensis · 2021Article
- Precision Medicine in Mite Allergic Rhinitis.Frontiers in allergy · 2021Review
- Local allergic rhinitis: evolution of concepts.Clinical and translational allergy · 2017Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeWe previously reported that the skin prick test was sensitive and the serum specific immunoglobulin E test was specific for predicting positive airway responses to house dust mites (HDMs) in patients with asthma. Because the nose and bronchus are one airway, the nasal provocation test would be more specific for predicting the bronchial responses to HDM than the skin test.
methodsThe allergy skin prick test and nasal and bronchial provocation tests using HDM (Dermatophagoides farinae) were performed in 41 young men (age, 19-28 years) who wanted military certification for asthma. The nasal responses to HDM was scored according to the severity of rhinorrhea, sneezing, and nose itching.
resultsThe prevalence of a positive skin prick test to HDM did not significantly differ between patients with (n=24) and without (n=17) an early airway reaction (EAR; 79.2% vs 70.6%, P=0.534). However, the prevalence of a positive nasal test was significantly higher in the airway responders than in the others (37.5% vs 0%, P=0.005). The concordance of a positive response to the nasal test (κ=0.332, P=0.004) but not to the skin prick test (κ=0.091, P=0.529) was significant with an EAR. The diagnostic sensitivity of the nasal test (37.5%) was lower than that of the skin prick test (79.2%), but the specificity was higher (100% vs 29.4%).
conclusionsThe skin prick test is more sensitive, whereas the nasal test is more specific and accurate, for predicting an EAR to HDM in patients with asthma.
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.