SynthesisFrontiers in medicine2026
Efficacy of allergen-specific immunotherapy for allergic rhinitis: a meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Frontiers in medicine, 2026. 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.
- World Allergy Organization Sublingual Immunotherapy Position Paper: 2026 update:The World Allergy Organization journal · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: This meta-analysis aimed to systematically evaluate and compare treatment adherence (measured by treatment discontinuation rate) and safety (measured by adverse event rate) between subcutaneous immunotherapy (SCIT) and sublingual immunotherapy (SLIT) in patients with allergic rhinitis (AR), providing evidence-based guidance for clinical decision-making. Methods: A comprehensive literature search was conducted in PubMed, MEDLINE, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, and EMBASE databases from inception to August 2025 to identify relevant studies (specifically randomized controlled trials [RCTs]) comparing SCIT and SLIT for treating AR. Two independent researchers performed study selection and data extraction. The methodological quality of RCTs was evaluated using the Cochrane RoB-2 tool. Statistical analyses were performed using RevMan 5.3 and STATA 18.0. Dichotomous data were expressed as odds ratios (ORs), and continuous data were expressed as mean differences (MDs), both with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Heterogeneity was assessed using the I Results: This meta-analysis showed that there was no statistically significant difference in the treatment discontinuation rate between SCIT and SLIT in the treatment of allergic rhinitis (combined log OR = 0.30, 95% CI [-0.79, 1.39], Conclusion: Both SCIT and SLIT exhibited comparable treatment adherence (discontinuation rates) in patients with allergic rhinitis; however, the incidence of adverse events in SCIT was significantly higher than that in SLIT, and SLIT had more advantages in terms of safety. Clinical decisions should consider individual patient factors, including treatment convenience and monitoring conditions. Systematic review registration: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php, identifier CRD420261306427.
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.