ReviewAllergy2026
Chinese Position Paper on Biologic Therapy for Allergic Rhinitis.
Review in Allergy, 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
38 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Allergic rhinitis (AR) is a common, persistent nasal disorder that poses significant public health challenges worldwide. Current treatment options frequently fail to achieve adequate symptom control in a substantial subset of patients. Over the past two decades, biologic therapies that target type 2 inflammatory pathways have been used to treat patients experiencing poorly controlled symptoms, despite standard-of-care (SoC) treatment. Although biological treatment options for AR remain limited worldwide, the recent approval of novel agents, such as stapokibart for seasonal allergic rhinitis (SAR), has accelerated clinical research and development in this field. Evidence for biologic therapy in the management of perennial allergic rhinitis (PAR) is currently sparse. To standardise the use of biologics in AR management and promote their evidence-based application, a multidisciplinary expert panel was convened. This position paper evaluates current evidence regarding the efficacy and safety of biologic agents for AR, incorporating data from both international and regional clinical studies. Here, we provide recommendations on appropriate indications for biologic therapy and emphasise its role in patients with uncontrolled SAR, supporting clinical decision-making and facilitating the integration of biologics into routine practice.
Indexed as
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.