ReviewJournal of inflammation research2026
Challenges in Differentiating Chronic Inducible Urticaria from Chronic Spontaneous Urticaria.
Review in Journal of inflammation research, 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
Chronic urticaria (CU) is a mast cell-driven condition presenting with recurrent wheals (hives), angioedema, or both for over 6 weeks. It encompasses chronic spontaneous urticaria (CSU), in which hives occur without specific external triggers, and chronic inducible urticaria (CIndU), in which stimuli, such as physical factors, reliably induce hives. Differentiating CIndU from CSU may be challenging yet crucial. Patients may have unrecognized triggers or may have both CSU and CIndU, rendering diagnosis and management challenging. Drawing on current guidelines, randomized control trials, observational studies, and other recent studies, this narrative review discusses the subtypes of CSU and CIndU, emphasizing clinical distinctions, diagnosis, and treatment implications. Key diagnostic clues to identify CIndU include the reproducibility of symptoms followed by defined stimuli and a positive response to provocation testing. In contrast, CSU diagnosis should be centered on clinical history. Biomarkers may be helpful to establish a diagnosis of autoimmune CSU but are rarely ordered in routine practice. Treatment is outlined according to current guidelines and evidence, noting that while second-generation H1-antihistamines are first-line for all CU patients, patients with CIndU often require trigger avoidance and occasionally off-label therapies (eg, omalizumab) for adequate control. In addition, this review discusses emerging treatments for CU, such as dupilumab, Bruton's tyrosine kinase (BTK) inhibitors, and barzolvolimab, which reflect the rapidly evolving therapeutic landscape. This review provides a practical guide for clinicians to differentiate and manage CSU and CIndU, by identifying key differences between CSU and CIndU based on current evidence.
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.