Trial reportPloS one2018
Discriminating severe seasonal allergic rhinitis. Results from a large nation-wide database.
Trial report in PloS one, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 14 citations in OpenAlex.
- Demographics and clinical features of pediatric patients with allergic rhinitis: a single-center study from Western Turkey.BMC pediatrics · 2025Article
- The Evolution and Application of Artificial Intelligence in Rhinology: A State of the Art Review.Otolaryngology--head and neck surgery : official journal of American Academy of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery · 2023Review
- A Scoping Review of Artificial Intelligence Research in Rhinology.American journal of rhinology & allergy · 2023Article
- Current treatment strategies for seasonal allergic rhinitis: where are we heading?Clinical and molecular allergy : CMA · 2022Review
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 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Allergic rhinitis (AR) is a chronic disease affecting a large amount of the population. To optimize treatment and disease management, it is crucial to detect patients suffering from severe forms. Several tools have been used to classify patients according to severity: standardized questionnaires, visual analogue scales (VAS) and cluster analysis. The aim of this study was to evaluate the best method to stratify patients suffering from seasonal AR and to propose cut-offs to identify severe forms of the disease. In a multicenter French study (PollinAir), patients suffering from seasonal AR were assessed by a physician that completed a 17 items questionnaire and answered a self-assessment VAS. Five methods were evaluated to stratify patients according to AR severity: k-means clustering, agglomerative hierarchical clustering, Allergic Rhinitis Physician Score (ARPhyS), total symptoms score (TSS-17), and VAS. Fisher linear, quadratic discriminant analysis, non-parametric kernel density estimation methods were used to evaluate miss-classification of the patients and cross-validation was used to assess the validity of each scale. 28,109 patients were categorized into "mild", "moderate", and "severe", through the 5 different methods. The best discrimination was offered by the ARPhyS scale. With the ARPhyS scale, cut-offs at a score of 8-9 for mild to moderate and of 11-12 for moderate to severe symptoms were found. Score reliability was also acceptable (Cronbach's α coefficient: 0.626) for the ARPhyS scale, and excellent for the TSS-17 (0.864). The ARPhyS scale seems the best method to target patients with severe seasonal AR. In the present study, we highlighted optimal discrimination cut-offs. This tool could be implemented in daily practice to identify severe patients that need a specialized intervention.
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.