Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 473

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 93 of the 93 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Recommendations for the standardization of clinical outcomes used in allergen immunotherapy trials for allergic rhinoconjunctivitis: an EAACI Position Paper

Pfaar, O., Demoly, P., Gerth van Wijk, R., Bonini, S., Bousquet, J., Canonica, G. W., Durham, S. R., Jacobsen, L., Malling, H. J., Mösges, R., Papadopoulos, N. G., Rak, S., Rodriguez del Rio, P., Valovirta, E., Wahn, U., Calderon, M. A.·2014·Allergy

Abstract

Background: Allergen immunotherapy (AIT) has been thoroughly documented in randomized controlled trials (RCT s). It is the only immune‐modifying and causal treatment available for patients suffering from I g E‐mediated diseases such as allergic rhinoconjunctivitis, allergic asthma and insect sting allergy. However, there is a high degree of clinical and methodological heterogeneity among the endpoints in clinical studies on AIT, for both subcutaneous and sublingual immunotherapy (SCIT and SLIT). At present, there are no commonly accepted standards for defining the optimal outcome parameters to be used for both primary and secondary endpoints. Methods: As elaborated by a Task Force (TF) of the European Academy of Allergy and Clinical Immunology (EAACI) Immunotherapy Interest Group, this Position Paper evaluates the currently used outcome parameters in different RCT s and also aims to provide recommendations for the optimal endpoints in future AIT trials for allergic rhinoconjunctivitis. Results: Based on a thorough literature review, the TF members have outlined recommendations for nine domains of clinical outcome measures. As the primary outcome, the TF recommends a homogeneous combined symptom and medication score (CSMS) as a simple and standardized method that balances both symptoms and the need for antiallergic medication in an equally weighted manner. All outcomes, grouped into nine domains, are reviewed. Conclusion: A standardized and globally harmonized method for analysing the clinical efficacy of AIT products in RCT s is required. The EAACI TF highlights the CSMS as the primary endpoint for future RCT s in AIT for allergic rhinoconjunctivitis.

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 · 10.1111/all.12383

Cites

93 of 93 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 93 references

Cited by

See all 473

Metadata

Authors
Pfaar, O., Demoly, P., Gerth van Wijk, R., Bonini, S., Bousquet, J., Canonica, G. W., Durham, S. R., Jacobsen, L., Malling, H. J., Mösges, R., Papadopoulos, N. G., Rak, S., Rodriguez del Rio, P., Valovirta, E., Wahn, U., & Calderon, M. A.
Venue
Allergy
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2014-04-25
Volume
69
Issue
7
Pages
854-867
ISSN
  • 0105-4538 (ISSN-L)
  • 1398-9995
OpenAlex
W2074474404
Cited by
473
References
93
FWCI
21.15
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

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: Recommendations for the standardization of clinical outcomes used in allergen immunotherapy trials for allergic rhinoconjunctivitis: an EAACI Position Paper. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1111/all.12383
The paper
Pfaar, O., Demoly, P., Gerth van Wijk, R., Bonini, S., Bousquet, J., Canonica, G. W., Durham, S. R., Jacobsen, L., Malling, H. J., Mösges, R., Papadopoulos, N. G., Rak, S., Rodriguez del Rio, P., Valovirta, E., Wahn, U., & Calderon, M. A. (2014). Recommendations for the standardization of clinical outcomes used in allergen immunotherapy trials for allergic rhinoconjunctivitis: an EAACI Position Paper. Allergy. https://doi.org/10.1111/all.12383

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.