ArticleClinical and translational allergy2025
Variability of Diagnostic Outcomes in Nasal Allergen Challenge: The Role of Combined Subjective and Objective Indicators.
Article 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 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.
- Article
- Variability of Diagnostic Outcomes in Nasal Allergen Challenge: The Role of Combined Subjective and Objective Indicators.Clinical and translational allergy · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundNasal allergen challenge (NAC) is currently the only available test to confirm nasal responsiveness to allergens and is a core diagnostic tool for allergic rhinitis. NAC is currently diagnosed by combining existing subjective measures and objective assessment methods in pairs to assess outcomes, based on a strong positive result for a single item or a moderately positive result for a combination of two items. However, there are few data on the diagnostic outcomes and characteristics of its various diagnostic combinations.
objectiveTo evaluate the differences and characteristics of various existing diagnostic methods (combinations of subjective and objective indicators) for NAC.
methodDuring January 2023-December 2024, patients with history of chronic rhinitis (CR) who experienced nasal symptoms upon exposure to dust, as well as healthy controls, were enrolled. Demographic and clinical data were collected, followed by a NAC with Dermatophagoides farinae (Df). Total nasal symptom score (TNSS), visual analog scales (VAS), acoustic rhinometry (AcRh), Active anterior rhinomanometry (AAR) and 4-phase-rhinomanometry (4PR) were used for assessment before and after NAC. The diagnostic results, minimum NAC concentration at positive trigger, and type of positive response (subjective or objective) were recorded.
resultA total of 180 patients and 133 healthy controls were enrolled in the study. Significant differences in positive rates were observed across the six diagnostic evaluation combinations (p = 0.001). The combination of subjective TNSS evaluation with objective AAR assessment demonstrated the highest positive rate among patients (55.6%), whereas the combination of subjective VAS evaluation with objective AcRh assessment yielded the lowest positive rate (31.7%). Furthermore, when diagnostic combinations triggered positive results, they favored strong objective positivity.
conclusionThe diagnostic results derived from pairwise combinations of various subjective measurements and objective assessments exhibit variability, with objective assessments demonstrating a higher propensity to yield positive results compared to subjective measurements.
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.