SynthesisFrontiers in immunology2025
Efficacy of different allergen-specific immunotherapies for the treatment of allergic rhinitis in children and adults: an umbrella review.
Synthesis in Frontiers in immunology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Recent advances in allergen immunotherapy.Chinese medical journal · 2026Review
- Predicting the course of chronic rhinosinusitis in young children-5-year prospective study.Pediatric allergy and immunology : official publication of the European Society of Pediatric Allergy and Immunology · 2026Article
- Efficacy ofJournal of asthma and allergy · 2026Article
- Review
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: The aim of this study was to summarize the therapeutic efficacy of various allergen immunotherapy (AIT) in the treatment of allergic rhinitis (AR) among different populations and for different allergens. Methods: Systematic reviews or meta-analyses related to the efficacy of AIT in the treatment of AR until October 2024 were retrieved from PubMed, Web of Science, Embase, and Cochrane Library. Each study was independently evaluated by two investigators in accordance with the inclusion and exclusion criteria. The methodological quality was assessed using AMSTAR 2, and the quality of evidence was evaluated by the GRADE system. Results: A total of 16 SRs/Mas were included. The methodological quality was evaluated by AMSTAR 2, with 5 rated as "low" and the remainder as "very low". The quality of the evidence was assessed using the GRADE system. It was found that the quality of evidence in most studies was unsatisfactory. Among the included articles, six had moderate-quality evidence, six had low-quality evidence, and four had very low-quality evidence, with no high-quality evidence. There was a moderate degree of overlap among the included literature. After conducting an overall efficacy evaluation of the extracted data, it was found that SLIT, SCIT, and LNIT were effective in the treatment of AR, while cluster SCIT and ILIT had no significant efficacy compared with placebo. Conclusion: SLIT and SCIT are active and effective treatments for AR, and show significant efficacy in adults, children, and for different allergens. There are still relatively few meta-analyses and systematic reviews of cluster SCIT, ILIT, and LNIT, and there is still scope for further improvement in the assessment of their efficacy. Considering that the methodological quality and evidence of the systematic reviews and meta-analyses included in this study are generally low, more high-quality, large-scale, multicenter, randomized controlled clinical trials are indispensable in the future to firmly verify the efficacy of various AIT in the treatment of AR in different populations and allergens. Systematic review registration: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/, identifier CRD42024600378.
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.