ArticleFrontiers in pharmacology2025
A comprehensive clinical evaluation of levocetirizine in the treatment of chronic urticaria in children.
Article in Frontiers in pharmacology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Green synthesis ofRSC advances · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: Levocetirizine is a second-generation antihistamine that is the first-line drug recommended by the guidelines for the treatment of chronic urticaria in children. However, the current study focused mainly on adults, and a comprehensive evaluation of children has not been reported. Therefore, comprehensive clinical evaluation of levocetirizine in the treatment of chronic urticaria in children is crucial for providing rational clinical drug use and improving the basis of relevant national policies. To conduct a comprehensive clinical evaluation of levocetirizine in the treatment of chronic urticaria in children and provide a reference for rational drug use and related policy decisions in clinical practice. Methods: A comprehensive clinical evaluation index system for the use of antiallergic drugs in children was established via a literature review, expert interviews, and the Delphi method. Evidence was collected to evaluate the safety, efficiency, economy, suitability, accessibility and innovation of levocetirizine and loratadine for the treatment of chronic urticaria in children. Results: The comprehensive clinical evaluation index system included six primary indicators, 12 secondary indicators, and 25 tertiary indicators. The total clinical comprehensive evaluation score of levocetirizine was 92.83, whereas that of loratadine was 72.49. The former is superior to the latter in terms of safety, effectiveness, suitability, innovation, and accessibility, whereas the latter is more cost-effective than the former. Conclusion: The comprehensive clinical value of levocetirizine is greater than that of loratadine in the treatment of chronic urticaria in children, which can provide evidence for the rational use of antiallergic drugs and drug catalog selection in medical institutions.
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.