ReviewCurrent opinion in allergy and clinical immunology2025
Standardizing outcomes in food allergy research: aligning clinical trials with patient priorities.
Review in Current opinion in allergy and clinical immunology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purpose of reviewThis review explores the clinical outcomes used in immunoglobulin E (IgE)-mediated food allergy (FA) intervention studies, emphasizing unmet need for patient-centred outcomes. Standardizing outcome measurement is critical as research into FA treatments, particularly food immunotherapy, expands. Here we discuss how outcomes should reflect the multidimensional impact of FA on people's lives. RECENT
findingsCurrent evidence reveals a discrepancy between clinical trial outcomes and those most valued by patients and carers. While trials often prioritize changes in reactivity thresholds or immunological markers, patients and carers emphasize need in reducing severe reactions, improving quality of life, and enhancing confidence in disease management. This disparity highlights importance of harmonization efforts to guide FA research.The Core Outcome Measures for Food Allergy (COMFA) initiative recently identified two core outcomes - 'allergic symptoms' and 'quality of life' - through an international consensus process involving patients, caregivers, clinicians, and researchers. Outcomes like 'desensitization' and 'remission/sustained unresponsiveness' were considered important but were not seen as the most critical. SUMMARY: Developing and implementing a COS for FA intervention studies is essential to align research with patient priorities, ensuring meaningful improvements in routine clinical care. Standardized outcome measurement will generate robust evidence, inform clinical practice, and empower patients and caregivers in decision-making about FA management.
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.