ArticlePatient preference and adherence2019
Interactive Network Platform Improves Compliance and Efficacy of Subcutaneous Immunotherapy for Patients with Allergic Rhinitis.
Article in Patient preference and adherence, 2019. 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, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
- Identification of Novel Biomarkers for Evaluating Disease Severity in House-Dust-Mite-Induced Allergic Rhinitis by Serum Metabolomics.Disease markers · 2021Trial
- Persistence and Reasons for Discontinuation of Subcutaneous Immunotherapy in Children with Dust Mite Allergy: A Real-World Cohort from Hangzhou, China.Journal of asthma and allergy · 2026Article
- Internet follow-up can improve the compliance of sublingual immunotherapy in children with allergic rhinitis: a retrospective cohort study.Translational pediatrics · 2023Article
- Global research trends and hotspot evolution analysis of immunotherapy for allergic rhinitis: a multi-dimensional exploration based on bibliometrics.Brazilian journal of otorhinolaryngologyReview
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 at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundAllergic rhinitis (AR) is a common chronic inflammatory disease of nasal mucosa worldwide, and its symptoms seriously affect the lives of patients. Subcutaneous immunotherapy (SCIT) is an effective treatment for AR, but it is also associated with low patient compliance and difficulties in fully achieving therapeutic effects.
objectiveIn this prospective randomized controlled study, we verified the effects of an interactive network platform named "U breath" in improving patient compliance and the efficacy of SCIT in patients with AR.
methodsA total of 148 patients who received SCIT were recruited as participants and randomly assigned to either the standardized management (SM) or the interactive network platform management (INP) group. The SM group experienced the standard management SCIT process. The INP group experienced a new management approach based on an interactive network platform called "U breath". The compliance rate, combined symptom and medication score (CSMS), visual analogue scale score and the rhinoconjunctivitis quality of life questionnaire (RQLQ) results were evaluated at baseline and 1-year postintervention for the two groups.
resultsWithin the first year of treatment, the INP group had a higher compliance rate than did the SM group, with a statistically significant difference (P<0.05). The INP group showed better clinical improvement than the SM group did in terms of the VAS score, and the RQLQ score except the sleep problems (P< 0.05).
conclusionThis study confirmed that the application of an interactive network platform is of great significance for improving patient compliance and the treatment effects of SCIT in patients with AR.
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.