ReviewClinical and translational allergy2020
A meta-analysis of baseline characteristics in trials on mite allergen avoidance in asthmatics: room for improvement.
Review in Clinical and translational allergy, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
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
7 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- The relationship between physical function and psychological symptoms in Parkinson's disease: A systematic review and meta-regression analysis.CNS neuroscience & therapeutics · 2024Pooled it
- Prevalence of immunoglobulin E sensitization to various inhaled allergens among the residents of the Northern United Arab Emirates: Automated evaluation of a membrane-based test system.Saudi medical journal · 2025Article
- House dust mite allergen avoidance strategies for the treatment of allergic asthma: A hypothesis-generating meta-analysis.The World Allergy Organization journal · 2024Review
- Asthma, classical conditioning, and the autonomic nervous system - a hypothesis for why children wheeze.Archives of disease in childhood · 2024Review
- Indoor Environmental Exposures and Their Relationship to Allergic Diseases.The journal of allergy and clinical immunology. In practice · 2023Article
- Environmental allergen reduction in asthma management: an overview.Frontiers in allergy · 2023Review
- Update on House Dust Mite Allergen Avoidance Measures for Asthma.Current allergy and asthma reports · 2020Review
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
backgroundEvidence regarding the clinical effectiveness of mite allergen avoidance for the treatment of asthma is lacking. In previous meta-analyses on mite allergen control, the baseline data were not discussed in detail. This study updates and extends the existing Cochrane review by Gøtzsche and Johansen (Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, 2008, Art. No: CD001187), with a focus on baseline asthma outcomes and allergen exposures.
methodsWe used the existing trials in the original Cochrane review and included newly published studies. The baseline data for the mite allergen load from the mattress, the standardized asthma symptom score (ASS), the forced expiratory volume in 1 s percentage of predicted (FEV
resultsForty-five trials were included; 39 trials reported strategies for concurrent bedroom interventions, and 6 trails reported strategies for air purification. The mite allergen load ranged from 0.44 to 24.83 μg/g dust, with a mean of 9.86 μg/g dust (95% CI 5.66 to 14.05 μg/g dust, I DISCUSSION: This meta-analysis shows that mite avoidance studies are characterized by the inclusion of patients with rather mild to moderate asthma and with varying and sometimes negligible levels of allergen exposure. Future studies should focus on patients with severe asthma and increased levels of allergen exposure.
Identifiers
What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.