ArticleClinical and translational allergy2021
Allergen immunotherapy for respiratory allergy: Quality appraisal of observational comparative effectiveness studies using the REal Life Evidence AssessmeNt Tool. An EAACI methodology committee analysis.
Article in Clinical and translational allergy, 2021. 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, 14 citations in OpenAlex.
- RIAIT (Italian Registry of Allergen Immunotherapy): Protocol for a New Tool in a New Vision of Disease-Modifying Therapy for Allergists.Journal of personalized medicine · 2024Article
- IR (index of reactivity)-house dust mite sublingual immunotherapy liquid formulation for allergic rhinoconjunctivitis: Systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized and nonrandomized studies.The journal of allergy and clinical immunology. Global · 2024Article
- Selection of allergen extract for immunotherapy in polysensitized allergic rhinitis patients.Immunotherapy · 2024Article
- Effects of house dust mite subcutaneous immunotherapy in real-life. Immunological and clinical biomarkers and economic impact analysis.The World Allergy Organization journal · 2023Article
- Clinical endpoints in allergen immunotherapy: State of the art 2022.Allergologie select · 2023Review
- Safety Profile and Issues of Subcutaneous Immunotherapy in the Treatment of Children with Allergic Rhinitis.Cells · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundObservational comparative effectiveness studies in allergen immunotherapy (AIT) represent an important evidence source answering research questions that can be challenging to obtain from randomized controlled trials (RCTs), such as long-term benefits of AIT, the effects on asthma prevention and the onset of new allergen sensitizations. However, observational studies are prone to several sources of bias, which limit their reliability.The REal Life Evidence AssessmeNt Tool (RELEVANT) was recently developed to assist in quality appraisal of observational comparative research to enable identification of useful nonrandomized studies to be considered within guideline development.
objectiveTo systematically appraise the quality of published observational comparative AIT studies using RELEVANT.
methodsObservational studies comparing AIT to pharmacotherapy for respiratory allergies, assessing as outcome measures reduction of symptoms and/or medication use reduction, were retrieved by computerized bibliographic searches. According to RELEVANT, a failure to meet any one of primary items (background, design, measures, analysis, results, discussion/interpretation, and conflict of interest) represents a critical flaw, significantly undermining the validity of the study results.
resultsThe 14 studies identified supported the benefit of AIT in real-life, which persists after treatment discontinuation. However, none of them met all the 7 primary RELEVANT criteria. The main defects were reported in the design (28.6% of studies), measures and analysis (64.3% of studies), and results (78.6% of studies) items, due to selection bias and lack of methods for adjusting controls. Half of the studies did not report on conflict of interest.
conclusionThere is a need for more robust observational research in AIT. RELEVANT appears as an easy-to-use and sensitive tool for quality appraisal in AIT studies.
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.