ArticleClinical and translational allergy2017
Allergic respiratory disease (ARD), setting forth the basics: proposals of an expert consensus report.
Article in Clinical and translational allergy, 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.
- Sensitization profiles to olive pollen allergens and allergic respiratory disease severity in patients from Jaén, Spain: A cross-sectional study.The World Allergy Organization journal · 2025Article
- The Notorious Triumvirate in Pediatric Health: Air Pollution, Respiratory Allergy, and Infection.Children (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Article
- Article
- Current opinions for the management of asthma associated with ear, nose and throat comorbidities.European respiratory review : an official journal of the European Respiratory Society · 2018Review
- Treatment of Allergic Rhinitis as a Strategy for Preventing Asthma.Current allergy and asthma reports · 2018Review
- [Unmet Needs in Severe Allergic Asthma].Open respiratory archivesArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe variability of symptoms observed in patients with respiratory allergy often hampers classification based on the criteria proposed in guidelines on rhinitis and asthma.
objectivesWe assessed specific aspects of allergic respiratory disease (ARD) that are not explicitly addressed in the guidelines in order to issue specific recommendations and thus optimize clinical practice.
methodsUsing the Delphi technique, 40 Spanish allergists were surveyed to reach consensus on 71 items related to ARD.
resultsConsensus was achieved for 95.7% of the items. These included the following: the clinical manifestations of ARD are heterogeneous and individual airborne allergens can be related to specific clinical profiles; the optimal approach in patients with ARD is based on the global assessment of rhinoconjunctivitis and asthma; aeroallergens are largely responsible for the clinical features and severity of the disease; and clinical expression is associated with the period of environmental exposure to the allergen. Pharmacological treatment of ARD is often based on the intensity of symptoms recorded during previous allergen exposures and cannot always be administered following a step-up approach, as recommended in clinical practice guidelines. Allergen immunotherapy (AIT) is the only option for overall treatment of respiratory symptoms using an etiological approach. AIT can modify the prognosis of ARD and should therefore be considered a valuable first-line treatment.
conclusionsThe present study highlights gaps in current asthma and rhinitis guidelines and addresses specific aspects of ARD, such as global assessment of both asthma and rhinitis or the specific role of variable allergen exposure in the clinical expression of the disease.
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.