Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 576

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

A randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study of milk oral immunotherapy for cow's milk allergy

Open access
Skripak, Justin M., Nash, Scott D., Rowley, Hannah, Brereton, Nga H., Oh, Susan, Hamilton, Robert G., Matsui, Elizabeth C., Burks, A. Wesley, Wood, Robert A.·2008·Journal of Allergy and Clinical Immunology

Abstract

Background Orally administered, food-specific immunotherapy appears effective in desensitizing and potentially permanently tolerizing allergic individuals. Objective We sought to determine whether milk oral immunotherapy (OIT) is safe and efficacious in desensitizing children with cow’s milk allergy. Methods Twenty children were randomized to milk or placebo OIT (2:1 ratio). Dosing included 3 phases: the build-up day (initial dose, 0.4 mg of milk protein; final dose, 50 mg), daily doses with 8 weekly in-office dose increases to a maximum of 500 mg, and continued daily maintenance doses for 3 to 4 months. Double-blind, placebo-controlled food challenges; end-point titration skin prick tests; and milk protein serologic studies were performed before and after OIT. Results Nineteen patients, 6 to 17 years of age, completed treatment: 12 in the active group and 7 in the placebo group. One dropped out because of persistent eczema during dose escalation. Baseline median milk IgE levels in the active (n = 13) versus placebo (n = 7) groups were 34.8 kUa/L (range, 4.86–314 kUa/L) versus 14.6 kUa/L (range, 0.93–133.4 kUa/L). The median milk threshold dose in both groups was 40 mg at the baseline challenge. After OIT, the median cumulative dose inducing a reaction in the active treatment group was 5140 mg (range 2540-8140 mg), whereas all patients in the placebo group reacted at 40 mg (P = .0003). Among 2437 active OIT doses versus 1193 placebo doses, there were 1107 (45.4%) versus 134 (11.2%) total reactions, with local symptoms being most common. Milk-specific IgE levels did not change significantly in either group. Milk IgG levels increased significantly in the active treatment group, with a predominant milk IgG4 level increase. Conclusions Milk OIT appears to be efficacious in the treatment of cow’s milk allergy. The side-effect profile appears acceptable but requires further study.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.jaci.2008.09.030

Cites

2 of 2 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 2 references

Cited by

See all 576

Metadata

Authors
Skripak, J. M., Nash, S. D., Rowley, H., Brereton, N. H., Oh, S., Hamilton, R. G., Matsui, E. C., Burks, A. W., & Wood, R. A.
Venue
Journal of Allergy and Clinical Immunology
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2008-12
Volume
122
Issue
6
Pages
1154-1160
ISSN
0091-6749 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W1963754158
Cited by
576
References
2
FWCI
21.57
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
green

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: A randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study of milk oral immunotherapy for cow's milk allergy. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1016/j.jaci.2008.09.030
The paper
Skripak, J. M., Nash, S. D., Rowley, H., Brereton, N. H., Oh, S., Hamilton, R. G., Matsui, E. C., Burks, A. W., & Wood, R. A. (2008). A randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study of milk oral immunotherapy for cow's milk allergy. Journal of Allergy and Clinical Immunology. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jaci.2008.09.030

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.