Intradermal Testing Doubles Identification of Allergy among 110 Immunotherapy-Responsive Patients with Eustachian Tube Dysfunction.

David S Hurst, Bruce R Gordon, Alan B McDaniel, Dennis S Poe

Open access · goldAbstract read

In one paragraph

Article in Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland), 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it

0cells of the map it votes in

3citing papers in PubMed

0.4field-weighted citation impact, top 43% 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

3 citing papers in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.

Sinonasal Intervention Reduces the Need for Pressure Equalization Tube Placement in Atopic Adults.The Laryngoscope · 2025
Article
Saliva as a diagnostic frontier: Assessing healthcare students' readiness for salivary biomarkers in early cancer detection.PloS one · 2025
Article
Clinical Relevance and Advantages of Intradermal Test Results in 371 Patients with Allergic Rhinitis, Asthma and/or Otitis Media with Effusion.Cells · 2021
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 3 institutions in 1 country.

David S HurstDepartment of Otolaryngology, Tufts University, Boston 02111, MA, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-1216-9861

Bruce R GordonDepartment of Laryngology & Otology, Harvard University, Boston, MA 02114, USA.

Alan B McDanielDepartment of Otolaryngology, University of Louisville, Louisville, KY 40202, USA.

Dennis S PoeHarvard Medical School, Boston, MA 02114, USA.

Harvard University · USTufts University · USUniversity of Louisville · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The purpose of this study was to determine whether the sensitivity advantage of intradermal dilutional testing (IDT) is clinically relevant in patients with obstructive Eustachian tube dysfunction (ETD) or otitis media with effusion (OME). This retrospective, private-practice cohort study compared the sensitivity of skin prick tests (SPT) vs. IDT in 110 adults and children with suspected allergy and OME.

Indexed as

allergic rhinitisallergy immunotherapyallergy testingasthmaeustachian tube dysfunctionintradermal testotitis mediaskin prick test

Identifiers

PMID33923133

DOI10.3390/diagnostics11050763

PMCPMC8146738

OpenAlexW3158511288

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata

LicenceCC BY

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.