Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35386639›Full record

ReviewFrontiers in allergy2022

Study of Cat Allergy Using Controlled Methodology-A Review of the Literature and a Call to Action.

Lubnaa Hossenbaccus, Sophia Linton, Rashi Ramchandani, Alyssa G Burrows, Anne K Ellis

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Frontiers in allergy, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

6 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Allergy to Cats: Current Perspectives and Therapeutic Options.Clinical and translational allergy · 2026
    Review
  2. Clinical validation of controlled exposure to cat dander in the Specialized Particulate Control Environmental Exposure Unit (SPaC-EEU).Allergy, asthma, and clinical immunology : official journal of the Canadian Society of Allergy and Clinical Immunology · 2025
    Article
  3. Review
  4. Technical validation of controlled exposure to cat dander in the specialized particulate control environmental exposure unit (SPaC-EEU).Allergy, asthma, and clinical immunology : official journal of the Canadian Society of Allergy and Clinical Immunology · 2025
    Article
  5. Review
  6. 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

5 authors.

Lubnaa HossenbaccusDepartment of Medicine, Queen's University, Kingston, ON, Canada.
Sophia LintonDepartment of Medicine, Queen's University, Kingston, ON, Canada.
Rashi RamchandaniDepartment of Medicine, Queen's University, Kingston, ON, Canada.
Alyssa G BurrowsDepartment of Medicine, Queen's University, Kingston, ON, Canada.
Anne K EllisDepartment of Medicine, Queen's University, Kingston, ON, Canada.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The prevalence of cat allergen-induced AR is increasing worldwide, prompting its study using controlled methodology. Three general categories of allergen exposure models currently exist for the study of cat allergen-induced AR: natural exposure cat rooms, allergen exposure chambers (AEC), and nasal allergen challenges (NAC). We evaluated existing literature surrounding the use of these models to study cat allergen induced AR using online research databases, including OVID Medline, Embase, and Web of Science. We report that natural exposure cat rooms have been important in establishing the foundation for our understanding of cat allergen-induced AR. Major limitations, including variable allergen ranges and differing study designs highlight the need for a more standardized protocol. In comparison, AECs are an exceptional model to mimic real-world allergen exposure and study long-term implications of AR with large sample sizes. Existing AECs are limited by heterogeneous facility designs, differing methods of cat allergen distribution, and issues surrounding cost and accessibility. Conversely, NACs allow for smaller participant cohorts for easier biological sampling and are ideal for phase I, phase 2 or proof-of-concept studies. NACs generally have a standardized protocol and are less expensive compared to AECs. Nevertheless, NACs solely capture acute allergen exposure and have the further limitation of using allergen extracts rather than natural allergen. As the use of combined controlled methodologies is sparse, we recommend concurrent use of AECs and NACs to study short- and long-term effects of AR, thereby providing a more holistic representation of cat allergen-induced AR.

Indexed as

allergen exposure chamber (AEC)allergic rhinitis (AR)cat allergiesFel d 1 exposurenasal allergen challengenatural exposure model

Identifiers

PMID35386639
PMCPMC8974834

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.