1,721,010 research outputs found
Speaking the same language in immunotherapy. WAO subcutaneous immunotherapy systemic reactions grading system
No full textJ Allergy Clin Immunol. 2010 Mar;125(3):569-74, 574.e1-574.e7. Epub 2010 Feb 7.
Speaking the same language: The World
Allergy Organization Subcutaneous
Immunotherapy Systemic Reaction Grading
System.
Cox L, Larenas-Linnemann D, Lockey RF, Passalacqua G.
Source
Nova Southeastern University School of Osteopathic Medicine, Davie, Fla, USA. [email protected]
Abstract
Subcutaneous allergen immunotherapy (SCIT) is an effective treatment for allergic rhinitis, asthma and venom
hypersensitivity and has the potential of producing serious life-threatening anaphylaxis. Adverse reactions are generally
classified into 2 categories: local reactions, which can manifest as redness, pruritus, and swelling at the injection site,
and systemic reactions (SRs). SRs can range in severity from mild rhinitis to fatal cardiopulmonary arrest. Early
administration of epinephrine, which is the treatment of choice to treat anaphylaxis, may prevent the progression of an
SR to a more serious life-threatening problem. Although there is little debate about using epinephrine to treat a SCIT
SR, there is a lack of consensus about when it should be first used. A uniform classification system for grading SCIT
SRs will be helpful in assessing more accurately when epinephrine should be administered. The primary purpose of this
article is to discuss the proposed grading system for SCIT SRs
ARIA Update I: complementary and alternative medicines.
No full textJ Allergy Clin Immunol. 2006 May;117(5):1054-62.
ARIA update: I--Systematic review of
complementary and alternative medicine for
rhinitis and asthma.
Passalacqua G, Bousquet PJ, Carlsen KH, Kemp J, Lockey RF, Niggemann B, Pawankar R, Price D, Bousquet J.
Source
Allergy and Respiratory Diseases, University of Genoa, Italy. [email protected]
Abstract
Complementary-alternative medicines are extensively used in the treatment of allergic rhinitis and asthma, but
evidence-based recommendations are lacking. To provide evidence-based recommendations, the literature was searched
by using MedLine and the Cochrane Library to March 2005 (Key words: Asthma [OR] Rhinitis, [AND]
Complementary [OR] Alternative Medicine, [OR] Herbal, [OR] Acupuncture, [OR] Homeopathy, [OR] Alternative
Treatment). Randomized trials, preferably double-blind and published in English, were selected. The articles were
evaluated by a panel of experts. Quality of reporting was assessed by using the scale validated by Jadad. The
methodology of clinical trials with complementary-alternative medicine was frequently inadequate. Meta-analyses
provided no clear evidence for the efficacy of acupuncture in rhinitis and asthma. Some positive results were described
with homeopathy in good-quality trials in rhinitis, but a number of negative studies were also found. Therefore it is not
possible to provide evidence-based recommendations for homeopathy in the treatment of allergic rhinitis, and further
trials are needed. A limited number of studies of herbal remedies showed some efficacy in rhinitis and asthma, but the
studies were too few to make recommendations. There are also unresolved safety concerns. Therapeutic efficacy of
complementary-alternative treatments for rhinitis and asthma is not supported by currently available evidence
Recommendations for standardization of clinical trials with Allergen Specific Immunotherapy for respiratory allergy. A statement of a World Allergy Organization (WAO) taskforce.
No full text
Going Beyond Counting First Authors in Author Co-citation Analysis
Full text linkThe present study examines one of the fundamental aspects of author co-citation analysis (ACA) - the way co-citation
counts are defined. Co-citation counting provides the data on which all subsequent statistical analyses and mappings
are based, and we compare ACA results based on two different types of co-citation counting - the traditional type that
only counts the first one among a cited work's authors on the one hand and a non-traditional type that takes into
account the first 5 authors of a cited work on the other hand. Results indicate that the picture produced through this non-traditional author co-citation counting contains more coherent author groups and is therefore considerably clearer. However, this picture represents fewer specialties in the research field being studied than that produced through the traditional first-author co-citation counting when the same number of top-ranked authors is selected and analyzed. Reasons for these effects are discussed
- …
