SynthesisSystematic reviews2025
Epicutaneous immunotherapy for food allergy: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Systematic reviews, 2025. 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.
- Mechanisms of IgE-mediated food allergy and the role of allergen-specific B cells.FEBS letters · 2026Review
- Scientific developments in understanding food allergy prevention, diagnosis, and treatment.Frontiers in immunology · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThere is ongoing debate about the safety and efficacy of epicutaneous immunotherapy (EPIT) in treating food allergies. The systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to evaluate the safety and efficacy of EPIT.
methodsWe systematically searched international trial registers (ClinicalTrials.gov), PubMed, Embase, the Cochrane Central of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), and Web of Science from the inception of the database until June 25, 2023. Two authors independently screened potential studies based on the following criteria: food allergy, epidermal immunotherapy, and randomized controlled trials(RCTs). The risk-of-bias assessment was performed using the Cochrane risk-of-bias 2 (ROB 2) tool. The primary outcomes included desensitization, local adverse events, systemic adverse events, and quality of life. Secondary outcomes included epinephrine utilization, topical medication utilization, and severe adverse events. We assessed certainty of evidence by the GRADE approach.
resultsTen studies involving 1970 participants were included. Ten high-quality RCTs focusing on peanut allergy and cow's milk allergy were included in the analysis. The meta-analysis revealed that EPIT promoted desensitization in patients with food allergy (RR 2.11, 95% CI 1.72-2.58; I
conclusionAfter EPIT treatment, patients with food allergy can effectively increase their immune tolerance to food. However, it also significantly increases mild-to-moderate anaphylaxis. There is limited data on the impact of EPIT on quality of life and other food allergic diseases, indicating a need for further research.
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.