ArticleSystematic reviews2026
Protocol for a systematic literature review and network meta-analysis of the evidence for therapies in allergic bronchopulmonary aspergillosis (ABPA).
Article in Systematic reviews, 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
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionAllergic bronchopulmonary aspergillosis (ABPA) affects millions worldwide, yet current treatment approaches remain suboptimal due to a one-size-fits-all model that fails to account for the significant heterogeneity across affected populations. While corticosteroids and itraconazole are commonly prescribed, there are associated risks and uncertainties regarding efficacy. Additionally, the efficacy of alternatives such as newer and higher activity triazole antifungals, or the place of "biologic" therapies like anti-IL5 antagonists, has not been thoroughly investigated.
objectivesThis review will assess treatment outcomes in patients with ABPA (Population) receiving antifungal or biologic therapies (Intervention) compared with corticosteroids, placebo, or alternative active treatments (Comparator), evaluating lung function (FEV₁), serological markers, exacerbation frequency, patient-reported outcomes, steroid-sparing effects, and adverse events (Outcomes) through a systematic review and network meta-analysis of published peer-reviewed studies. INCLUSION CRITERIA: All articles using the Population, Exposure/Intervention, Comparator, Outcomes, Duration, and Results (PECODR) framework related to human patients published in English from inception to the date of undertaking the study (present) will be included. MATERIALS AND
methodsThe following literature databases will be searched: MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Library Trials database, PubMed Central, Web of Science, and Scopus from inception to the present in collaboration with an experienced librarian. The primary researcher will screen the titles and abstracts; deduplication will be performed using Covidence®, and inclusion will be validated by a second checker. Quantitative analyses will be performed to summarise the results as means, frequency tables, and odds ratios of outcomes. Where there is sufficient data, a network meta-analysis will be conducted. The systematic review and network meta-analysis will be undertaken according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses for Network Meta-analysis (PRISMA-NMA) framework. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD42024443073.
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.