ReviewClinical reviews in allergy & immunology2019
The Myth of Mycotoxins and Mold Injury.
Review in Clinical reviews in allergy & immunology, 2019. 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, 20 citations in OpenAlex.
- Management and Immunotherapy for Fungal Allergy: Clinical Practice and Unmet Needs.Clinical reviews in allergy & immunology · 2026Review
- AWMF mold guideline "Medical clinical diagnostics for indoor mold exposure" - Update 2023 AWMF Register No. 161/001.Allergologie select · 2024Article
- Frequency and Distribution of Broncho-Alveolar Fungi in Lung Diseases in Martinique.Journal of clinical medicine · 2023Article
- Invasive Aspergillus outbreak in inhalation injury: a case presentation and literature review.BMC infectious diseases · 2022Review
- Mold, Mycotoxins and a Dysregulated Immune System: A Combination of Concern?International journal of molecular sciences · 2021Review
- Autoimmunity in 2019.Clinical reviews in allergy & immunology · 2020Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
In recent years, mold has been blamed for many symptoms or a constellation of symptoms. These symptoms are usually vague and subjective and difficult or impossible to measure or quantify. Moreover, there is no scientific evidence that mold has anything to do with these symptoms. In particular, the concept of toxic mold syndrome has permeated the public consciousness, and mycotoxins have falsely been associated with autoimmune diseases and a variety of other conditions. In fact, there is no evidence that the presence of mycotoxins in the air is enough to cause any disease known to man. Molds legitimately can cause allergies and can be a trigger for asthma. Certain specific molds such as Aspergillus can be a cause of hypersensitivity pneumonitis. In immunocompromised hosts, both dermatologic and systemic infections can result from various fungi and can be associated with significant morbidity or even mortality. However, the existence of toxic mold syndrome has been disproven, despite the numerous disreputable practices such as testing homes for mold spores, measuring "mycotoxins" in the urine, and testing patients for IgG to mold. In truth, none of these techniques have been validated, nor do they have any relevance to any clinical disease. All that these tests that are being performed by laboratories of disrepute does is to further propagate misinformation and inflict unnecessary and often exorbitant costs on patients desperate for a clinical diagnosis, right or wrong, for their constellation of maladies.
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.