ArticleYonsei medical journal2021
Appropriate Antigen Concentrations and Timing of a Nasal Provocation Test.
Article in Yonsei medical journal, 2021. 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, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- Clinical Feasibility and Safety of Nasal Allergen Provocation Testing in Pediatric Allergic Rhinitis.Immunity, inflammation and disease · 2026Article
- Do Skin Prick Tests Predict Nasal Provocation Test Outcomes in Allergic Rhinitis Patients?International forum of allergy & rhinology · 2025Article
- Chronic Rhinosinusitis With Nasal Polyps Does Not Affect the Association Between the Nasal Provocation Test and Serum Allergen-Specific Immunoglobulin E Levels.Journal of rhinology : official journal of the Korean Rhinologic Society · 2024Article
- [Research progress and clinical application of allergen nasal provocation test].Lin chuang er bi yan hou tou jing wai ke za zhi = Journal of clinical otorhinolaryngology head and neck surgery · 2023Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
purposeWe aimed to determine appropriate antigen concentrations and the right time to evaluate intranasal changes when performing a nasal provocation test (NPT). Also, we sought to analyze the diagnostic usefulness of individual nasal symptom and peak nasal inspiratory flow (PNIF). MATERIALS AND
methodsWe divided 46 patients into allergic rhinitis (AR) group (n=19) and a non-allergic rhinitis (NAR) group (n=27). We performed intranasal challenge with 100 AU/mL of Dermatophagoides pteronyssinus (DP) and measured changes in nasal symptoms [scored using the visual analogue scale (VAS)] and PNIF%. If the patient showed significant changes, VAS and PNIF were assessed again after another 15 minutes. In patients without significant changes, we administered 1000 AU/mL and measured changes in nasal symptoms and PNIF% after 15 and 30 minutes.
resultsFifteen minutes after the 100 AU/mL challenge, the AR group showed more significant VAS changes in all nasal symptoms, total nasal symptom score (TNSS), and PNIF% change than the NAR group. Among the AR group, patients who did not respond to 100 AU/mL exhibited less significant differences relative to the NAR group, even after 1000 AU/mL challenge. Receiver operating characteristic curve analysis for VAS changes 15 minutes after 100 AU/mL challenge revealed that all nasal symptoms had area under the curve (AUC) values of ≥0.84 (
conclusionWe could determine the optimal concentration (100 AU/mL), timing (15 minutes after challenge), and parameters (changes in TNSS and PNIF%) when performing NPT.
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.