Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 419

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 27 of the 27 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Two-step egg introduction for prevention of egg allergy in high-risk infants with eczema (PETIT): a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial

Open access
Natsume, Osamu, Kabashima, Shigenori, Nakazato, Junko, Yamamoto-Hanada, Kiwako, Narita, Masami, Kondo, Mai, Saito, Mayako, Kishino, Ai, Takimoto, Tetsuya, Inoue, Eisuke, Tang, Julian, Kido, Hiroshi, Wong, Gary W K, Matsumoto, Kenji, Saito, Hirohisa, Ohya, Yukihiro·2017·The Lancet

Abstract

BACKGROUND Evidence is accumulating that early consumption is more beneficial than is delayed introduction as a strategy for primary prevention of food allergy. However, allergic reactions caused by early introduction of such solid foods have been a problematic issue. We investigated whether or not early stepwise introduction of eggs to infants with eczema combined with optimal eczema treatment would prevent egg allergy at 1 year of age. METHODS In this randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial, we enrolled infants 4-5 months of age with eczema from two centres in Japan. Exclusion criteria were being born before 37 weeks of gestational age, experience of ingestion of hen's eggs or egg products, history of immediate allergic reaction to hen's eggs, history of non-immediate allergic reaction to a particular type of food, and complications of any severe disease. Infants were randomly assigned (block size of four; stratified by institution and sex) to early introduction of egg or placebo (1:1). Participants in the egg group consumed orally 50 mg of heated egg powder per day from 6 months to 9 months of age and 250 mg per day thereafter until 12 months of age. We aggressively treated participants' eczema at entry and maintained control without exacerbations throughout the intervention period. Participants and physicians were masked to assignment, and allocation was concealed. The primary outcome was the proportion of participants with hen's egg allergy confirmed by open oral food challenges at 12 months of age, assessed blindly by standardised methods, in all randomly allocated participants who received the intervention. This trial is registered with the University Hospital Medical Information Network Clinical Trials Registry, number UMIN000008673. FINDINGS Between Sept 18, 2012, and Feb 13, 2015, we randomly allocated 147 participants (73 [50%] to the egg group and 74 [50%] to the placebo group). This trial was terminated on the basis of the results of the scheduled interim analysis of 100 participants, which showed a significant difference between the two groups (four [9%] of 47 participants had an egg allergy in the egg group vs 18 [38%] of 47 in the placebo group; risk ratio 0·222 [95% CI 0·081-0·607]; p=0·0012). In the primary analysis population, five (8%) of 60 participants had an egg allergy in the egg group compared with 23 (38%) of 61 in the placebo group (risk ratio 0·221 [0·090-0·543]; p=0·0001). The only difference in adverse events between groups was admissions to hospital (six [10%] of 60 in the egg group vs none in the placebo group; p=0·022). 19 acute events occurred in nine (15%) participants in the egg group versus 14 events in 11 (18%) participants in the placebo group after intake of the trial powder. INTERPRETATION Introduction of heated egg in a stepwise manner along with aggressive eczema treatment is a safe and efficacious way to prevent hen's egg allergy in high-risk infants. In this study, we developed a practical approach to overcome the second wave of the allergic epidemic caused by food allergy. FUNDING Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare, and National Centre for Child Health and Development, Japan.

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/s0140-6736(16)31418-0

Cites

27 of 27 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 27 references

Cited by

See all 419

Metadata

Authors
Natsume, O., Kabashima, S., Nakazato, J., Yamamoto-Hanada, K., Narita, M., Kondo, M., Saito, M., Kishino, A., Takimoto, T., Inoue, E., Tang, J., Kido, H., Wong, G. W. K., Matsumoto, K., Saito, H., & Ohya, Y.
Venue
The Lancet
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2017-01
Volume
389
Issue
10066
Pages
276-286
ISSN
  • 0099-5355 (ISSN-L)
  • 0140-6736
OpenAlex
W2560313067
Cited by
419
References
27
FWCI
30.32
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: Two-step egg introduction for prevention of egg allergy in high-risk infants with eczema (PETIT): a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1016/s0140-6736(16)31418-0
The paper
Natsume, O., Kabashima, S., Nakazato, J., Yamamoto-Hanada, K., Narita, M., Kondo, M., Saito, M., Kishino, A., Takimoto, T., Inoue, E., Tang, J., Kido, H., Wong, G. W. K., Matsumoto, K., Saito, H., & Ohya, Y. (2017). Two-step egg introduction for prevention of egg allergy in high-risk infants with eczema (PETIT): a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial. The Lancet. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0140-6736(16)31418-0

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.