ArticleClinical and translational allergy2024
The long-term efficacy of intra-cervical lymphatic immunotherapy on adults with allergic rhinitis: A randomized controlled study.
Article in Clinical and translational allergy, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- Maximizing safety of ultrasound-guided intralymphatic allergen administration in the superficial inguinal lymph node.Allergy · 2025Article
- The long-term efficacy of intra-cervical lymphatic immunotherapy on adults with allergic rhinitis: A randomized controlled study.Clinical and translational allergy · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThe efficacy and safety of the novel immunotherapy method, intra-cervical lymphatic immunotherapy (ICLIT), need to be investigated. Comparing it with subcutaneous immunotherapy (SCIT), we clarified the long-term efficacy and safety of intra-cervical lymphatic immunotherapy on allergic rhinitis (AR), and investigated the improvement of clinical efficacy of the booster injection at 1 year after ICLIT treatment.
methodsNinety adult patients with dust mite allergy were randomly divided into 3 groups: 30 in the SCIT group, 30 in the ILCLIT group, and 30 in ICLIT booster group. Changes in total symptom score (TSS), nasal symptom score (TNSS), ocular symptom score (TOSS) and total medication score (TMS) were evaluated in the three groups. Adverse reactions were recorded, and serum dust mite specific IgE (sIgE) and specific IgG4 were assessed in the ICLIT group and ICLIT booster group.
resultsTSS, TNSS, TOSS, and TMS scores were significantly lower in the three groups at 36 months after treatment (p < 0. 05). And at 36 months the ICLIT-booster group showed results similar to SCIT and superior to ICLIT (p < 0. 05). Serum specific IgE decreased in all three groups at 12 and 36 months after treatment, p < 0.01. The ICLIT group and the ICLIT booster group showed a significant increase in sIgG4, p < 0.01. None of the patients in the three groups had any serious systemic adverse effects during the 3-year follow-up.
conclusionThe ICLIT treatment is effective and safe on AR. One booster injection of allergens at 1 year can greatly improve its long-term efficacy. TRIAL REGISTRY: Clinical trial registration number: ChiCTR1800017130.
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.