ReviewClinical and translational allergy2018
Epidemiology of spider mite sensitivity: a meta-analysis and systematic review.
Review in Clinical and translational allergy, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Review
- List of occupational diseases among farmers in Korea: a literature review.Annals of occupational and environmental medicine · 2025Review
- Bioaerosol Exposures and Respiratory Diseases in Cannabis Workers.Current allergy and asthma reports · 2024Review
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundSpider mites, including
methodsWe examined the literature to generate an estimate of the global prevalence of allergies to spider mites.
resultsElectronic databases were searched and twenty-three studies reporting the prevalence of sensitivity to spider mites (based on skin prick tests or IgE-based detection systems) in an aggregate total of 40,908 subjects were selected for analysis. The estimated overall rate of spider mite sensitivity was 22.9% (95% CI 19-26.8%). Heterogeneity was high and meta-regression analysis considering variables such as published year, country, number of study subjects, methods for allergen detection (skin prick test, ImmunoCAP, RAST testing, or intradermal test), and mite species revealed no single significant source. Twelve of the 23 studies reported rates of monosensitization (i.e., patients responsive to spider mites but no other tested allergen), yielding a global average of 7% (95% CI 5-9%), hence spider mites represent a unique source of allergens.
conclusionsSpider mites are an important cause of allergic symptoms. However, the publication bias and heterogeneity evident in this study indicate that further trials using standardized detection methods are needed to determine the association of exposure and symptoms as well as the specific patient characteristics that influence developing spider mite sensitivity.
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.