Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32021308›Full record

ReviewJournal of asthma and allergy2020

Clinical Utility of Rush Venom Immunotherapy: Current Status.

Vianney Gruzelle, Claire Mailhol, David W Waters, Laurent Guilleminault

Open access · goldAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Journal of asthma and allergy, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
0.7field-weighted citation impact, top 33% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

4 citing papers in PubMed, 10 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Vianney GruzelleDepartment of Paediatric Pneumology and Allergology, University Hospital Centre of Toulouse, Toulouse, France.ORCID 0000-0001-7024-2118
Claire MailholDepartment of Respiratory Medicine and Allergic Diseases, University Hospital Centre of Toulouse, Toulouse, France.
David W WatersCenter for Pathophysiology Toulouse Purpan, INSERM U1043, CNRS UMR 5282, Toulouse III University, Toulouse, France.
Laurent GuilleminaultDepartment of Respiratory Medicine and Allergic Diseases, University Hospital Centre of Toulouse, Toulouse, France.
Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique · FRCentre Hospitalier Universitaire de Toulouse · FR

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Hymenoptera venom allergy (HVA) is the leading cause of anaphylactic reactions in adults and the second most common cause in children. Venom immunotherapy (VIT) is used to elicit an immune tolerance against hymenoptera venom in allergic patients and is based on the administration of purified venom extracts regularly for defined periods. The protocols of administration include 2 phases: an up-dosing phase that incrementally reaches the final dose resulting in a protective effect, and a maintenance phase in order to obtain the sustained effect. The goal of this review is to detail the efficacy and the safety of the up-dosing phase also named rush. Pathophysiological mechanisms, indications of VIT and technical aspects of up-dosing protocol are also covered.

Indexed as

allergyhymenopteraimmunotherapy

Identifiers

PMID32021308
PMCPMC6954838
OpenAlexW2998193798

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.