ReviewClinical and translational allergy2025
Epicutaneous immunotherapy for food allergy: A systematic review and meta-analysis.
Review in Clinical and translational allergy, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Decoding Early Clues: Immune Mechanisms, Prevention, Diagnosis, and Treatment of IgE-Mediated Peanut and Tree Nut Allergy in Children.Biomedicines · 2025Review
- Advances in Food Allergy Immunotherapy: Current Strategies and Role of Antibodies Isotypes.Cells · 2025Review
- Epicutaneous immunotherapy for food allergy: A systematic review and meta-analysis.Clinical and translational allergy · 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundFood allergies pose a global healthcare challenge, underscoring the need for effective interventions. This study evaluated the efficacy and safety of epicutaneous immunotherapy (EPIT) for food allergen desensitisation.
methodsWe conducted a systematic review of randomised controlled trials by searching Ovid EMBASE, PubMed and Scopus in April 2024. Using a random-effects meta-analysis, we evaluated the clinical effectiveness and harms of EPIT, reporting results as risk ratios with 95% confidence intervals (CI).
resultsAfter screening 460 abstracts and 35 full reports, 11 were included: nine on peanuts and two on cow's milk (CM). Peanut EPIT had a 51.2% treatment response versus 22.4% for placebo (RR 2.16, CI 1.49-3.12; four studies; moderate certainty). The RR for milk EPIT response rate was 1.78 (CI 1.06-3.00; one study). Five peanut studies (1396 patients) reported EPIT-related adverse events (RR 1.39, CI 0.94-2.05; low certainty).
conclusionsEPIT offers a moderate treatment response with a favourable safety profile and significant improvements in quality of life. Current knowledge of EPIT remains limited, with evidence confined to peanut and CM allergies. There is a lack of research on sustained unresponsiveness achieved through food EPIT.
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.