ReviewThe World Allergy Organization journal2026
CRD-guided step-up care for pediatric dust mite allergy: A systematic review of evidence gaps and global disparities (2014-2025).
Review in The World Allergy Organization journal, 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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: The management of house dust mite (HDM) allergies in children is evolving with new evidence for precision diagnosis and therapies. However, global disparities in resource availability and regional variations in sensitization profiles challenge the implementation of optimal care. Objective: To synthesize the latest evidence (2014-2025) and propose a component-resolved diagnosis (CRD)-guided stepped-care framework for pediatric HDM allergies, addressing evidence gaps and global health disparities. Methods: We conducted a systematic review following PRISMA guidelines and searched the PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science databases for randomized controlled trials, meta-analyses, cohort studies, and clinical guidelines. Two reviewers independently screened records, assessed eligibility, and extracted data. Of 3371 records identified, 92 studies met the inclusion criteria and were included in the qualitative synthesis. The outcomes included the efficacy and safety of environmental controls, immunotherapy (sublingual [SLIT] vs subcutaneous [SCIT]), biologics, and the role of CRD. A narrative synthesis was performed because of substantial clinical heterogeneity across studies, supplemented by recent meta-analyses in a quantitative context. Results: Individual studies reported short-term Der p 1 reductions of 45-60% with physical interventions; however, a meta-analysis of 17 Randomized Clinical Trials (RCTs) revealed that these reductions were insufficient to improve clinical outcomes, and long-term adherence remained poor (<42%). Compared with SCIT, SLIT demonstrated a superior safety profile (local reactions <10%) and lower systemic reaction risk (OR 2.6, 95% CI 1.8-3.8), whereas SCIT was more effective in polysensitized children (symptom remission: 40% vs. 25%; RR 1.60, 95% CI 1.12-2.28). Omalizumab improved lung function (FEV Conclusion: Based on the synthesized evidence, this review outlines a preliminary CRD-guided, stepped-care framework that integrates molecular sensitization profiles with clinical phenotype and resource availability. This conceptual model seeks to move beyond conventional one-size-fits-all approaches by proposing resource-stratified pathways that prioritize cost-effective strategies in resource-limited settings while reserving intensive therapies for high-risk subgroups. However, the framework remains conceptual and requires prospective validation in diverse clinical and socioeconomic settings before its utility for addressing global health disparities can be assessed. Future priorities include gathering long-term biologic safety data, conducting real-world cost-effectiveness analyses, and developing globally harmonized, resource-sensitive guidelines.
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.