ReviewCurrent allergy and asthma reports2026
Occupational Allergy to Rat and Mouse in Research Laboratories.
Review in Current allergy and asthma reports, 2026. 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 reviewOccupational allergy to rat and mouse in laboratory animal facilities remains underdiagnosed and raises major concerns. This comprehensive review provides an overview of this allergy in literature and recent findings over the last decade. RECENT
findingsThe prevalence of rat and mouse allergy among laboratory workers over the past ten years ranges from 4,4% to 30%. Recent studies about sensitization to laboratory rat and mouse focus on rodent epithelial proteins, whereas sensitization to urinary proteins are traditionally studied. Thanks to molecular biology, studies are now paying attention to the allergenic proteins involved in the clinical reaction, notably Rat n 1, Rat n 4, Mus m 1 and Mus m 4. Despite known preventive measures, the prevalence of rat and mouse allergy among LAW remains stable over the last decade compared to previous data ranging from 4,4% to 30%. Anaphylaxis remains rare, but surely underdiagnosed. Determination of specific IgE against the different allergenic sources of rats and mice is easy to carry out routinely: epithelial, urinary and blood serum. However, rat and mouse allergenic protein identification remains difficult in clinical routine. The advent of molecular biology, allergen immunotherapy and biologic therapy may perhaps lead to the development of personalized treatments in future.
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.