SynthesisClinical reviews in allergy & immunology2026
Epidemic Thunderstorm Asthma in China: A Systematic Review of an Artemisia-Associated Phenotype.
Synthesis in Clinical reviews in allergy & immunology, 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
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Epidemic thunderstorm asthma (ETSA) has historically been characterised around grass pollen in temperate Australia and Europe, whereas reports from northern China suggest an Artemisia-associated and potentially recurrent pattern. This systematic review synthesises primary evidence on the epidemiology, allergen profile, clinical features and early-warning systems of ETSA, comparing the Chinese and grass-pollen experiences. Following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) 2020 statement, PubMed, Web of Science, the China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI) and Wanfang were searched to 30 June 2026, and reference lists were screened. Two reviewers independently selected studies, extracted data and assessed risk of bias with the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale and the Murad tool; certainty was rated using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach. Because of clinical and methodological heterogeneity, no meta-analysis was performed. Of 436 records identified and 333 screened after de-duplication, 54 primary studies were included (43 international and 11 Chinese, spanning Yulin, Hohhot, Chongqing, Lanzhou and Shenzhen). Three recurring observational patterns were identified. Chinese reports, especially from northern and north-western China, frequently described mugwort (Artemisia) sensitisation rather than ryegrass sensitisation; the proportion without a prior asthma diagnosis was high in both settings (approximately 40% to 60% in China and up to 60% to 78% in Australian and United Kingdom cohorts); and recurrent events were reported at individual Chinese localities. Most Chinese reports used genus-level Artemisia or mugwort sensitisation and did not identify the airborne pollen to species. Evidence for direct Artemisia pollen rupture, pollution-related severity modification and pre-emptive treatment was low or very low. Priority research includes field aerosol sampling, prospective validation of locally calibrated warning systems, and trials of pre-emptive inhaled therapy.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42684607What 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.