ReviewDermatology research and practice2026
Review on the Application of Biologic Factors in Atopic Dermatitis and Chronic Spontaneous Urticaria.
Review in Dermatology research and practice, 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.
- Review on the Application of Biologic Factors in Atopic Dermatitis and Chronic Spontaneous Urticaria.Dermatology research and practice · 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
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: The use of biologic factors in atopic dermatitis (AD) and chronic spontaneous urticaria (CSU). Methods: Data from different phase clinical trials, including RCTs and observational and real-world evidence, which were published in PubMed, were classified according to parameters evaluating AD and CSU. The keywords included the scientific names of different biological factors, AD and CSU. Results: Recalcitrant cases of AD and chronic CSU are rare, but they impose a burden on the lives of patients and a significant treatment cost. Monoclonal antibodies are currently used to treat a variety of autoimmune skin disorders. However, direct application of previous experience to AD and CSU was not applicable, because AD etiology involves a number of cytokine networks, and CSU seems to be related to a disorganized cytokine background. Conclusions: Dupilumab is ans FDA- and EMA-approved monoclonal antibody, which is effective in 40%-60% of severe AD cases. FDA/EMA-approved are also baricitinib, upadacitinib, and tralokinumab, which could be used as an alternative option. As our knowledge of the endotypes of the disease expands, precision medicine will be applied for the best results. Omalizumab has been used in clinical trials and real-life cases to treat CSU, but a debate on the efficacy of the monoclonal is frequently reported. However, EACCI's current guidelines for the disease include omalizumab as an add-on treatment for recalcitrant cases.
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.