ArticleThe World Allergy Organization journal2018
Brazilian experience with atopy patch tests for
Article in The World Allergy Organization journal, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 11 citations in OpenAlex.
- A narrative review of house dust mite allergy: species distribution and allergen sensitisation patterns across tropical regions.Frontiers in allergy · 2026Review
- Good clinical practice recommendations in allergen immunotherapy: Position paper of the Brazilian Association of Allergy and Immunology - ASBAI.The World Allergy Organization journal · 2022Review
- Impact of the COVID-19 national lockdown in the allergic rhinitis symptoms in patients treated with immunotherapy at two allergy referral centers in Bogotá, Colombia.Laryngoscope investigative otolaryngology · 2022Article
- Zero tolerance for asthma deaths in children.Jornal de pediatriaArticle
- The Diagnostic Value of Delayed-Type Reactions to Perennial Aeroallergens for Atopic Disease.Dermatitis : contact, atopic, occupational, drugArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe aim of this study was to evaluate the positivity rates of atopy patch tests for
methodsThe patients' clinical histories were collected, and the patients were subjected to skin prick and patch tests with the three different house dust mites on the same day. The patch tests were examined 48 hours later, and then patients were divided into two groups: I- patients with respiratory diseases, such as asthma and/or rhinitis, and atopic dermatitis and II-patients with only respiratory diseases. A total of 74 patients ranging in age from 2 to 60 years were included in this study; 16 patients were included in group I and 58 were included in group II. This study was approved by the human ethics committee of the Faculty of Medical Science and Health SUPREMA (number 2.007.135), and written informed consent was collected from each patient or their parents prior to enrollment.
resultsIn the skin prick tests, the most prevalent mite that evoked a reaction was DISCUSSION: Most studies have been performed with atopic dermatitis patients, but in this study, most of the patients had respiratory conditions.
conclusionThe APT should be considered as an additional test when the SPT and specific serum IgE tests are negative in patients with clinical histories of allergies.
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.