ReviewInternational journal of general medicine2025
Efficacy and Safety of Sublingual and Subcutaneous Immunotherapy in Children with Allergic Rhinitis: A Systematic Review of Randomized Trials Including Direct and Indirect Comparisons.
Review in International journal of general medicine, 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.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Allergic rhinitis (AR) is a prevalent condition significantly impacting children's health globally. Allergen immunotherapy (AIT), via sublingual (SLIT) or subcutaneous (SCIT) routes, offers disease modification, but direct pediatric comparisons are limited. This systematic review evaluates the relative efficacy and safety of SLIT versus SCIT in children with AR based on randomized clinical trial (RCT) evidence. Methods: A systematic literature search (PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, Scopus; July 2024) identified RCTs comparing SLIT vs SCIT, or either vs control, in children (≤18 years) with AR. Data on study design, participants, interventions, outcomes (symptom/medication scores, safety, adherence, immunological markers), were extracted. Methodological quality was assessed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool version 2 (RoB-2). Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines were followed. Results: Seven RCTs met inclusion criteria. Both SLIT and SCIT effectively reduced AR symptoms and medication use versus controls. Comparative efficacy was nuanced: several studies found comparable reductions in symptom/medication scores, while others suggested potential SCIT advantages for specific outcomes (asthma symptoms, Total Rhinitis Symptom Score from baseline). SLIT consistently showed a more favorable safety profile (mainly local reactions), whereas SCIT carried a higher risk of systemic reactions. Limited data suggested potential SLIT benefits in asthma prevention. Adherence data from included RCTs were sparse. Conclusion: Both SLIT and SCIT are effective for pediatric AR. SLIT offers comparable efficacy for many outcomes with better safety/convenience, while SCIT may have advantages for certain outcomes but requires clinic administration. Treatment choice requires individualization based on efficacy, safety, adherence potential, and patient/family factors. Further high-quality, long-term comparative trials are needed.
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.