Morten J Christensen, Annemarie Schaeffer Senders, Henrik Fomsgaard Kjaer, Carsten Bindslev-Jensen, Charlotte G Mortz
{"title":"Impact of Co-Factors in Primary Hazelnut Allergy.","authors":"Morten J Christensen, Annemarie Schaeffer Senders, Henrik Fomsgaard Kjaer, Carsten Bindslev-Jensen, Charlotte G Mortz","doi":"10.1111/cea.14611","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1111/cea.14611","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":10207,"journal":{"name":"Clinical and Experimental Allergy","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":6.3,"publicationDate":"2024-12-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"142846069","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Magdalena Kraft, Samira Saleh, Guido Heine, Alexander Scheffold, Petra Bacher, Margitta Worm
{"title":"Detection and Characterisation of Wasp Venom-Specific T Cells Using the ARTE Method in Allergic Patients.","authors":"Magdalena Kraft, Samira Saleh, Guido Heine, Alexander Scheffold, Petra Bacher, Margitta Worm","doi":"10.1111/cea.14606","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1111/cea.14606","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":10207,"journal":{"name":"Clinical and Experimental Allergy","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":6.3,"publicationDate":"2024-12-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"142827529","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
<p>In this month's issue of <i>Clinical and Experimental Allergy</i>, we highlight the prize-winners from the recent highly successful BSACI conference and present a Cochrane systematic review of topical anti-inflammatory treatments for eczema (atopic dermatitis). Prize-winner abstracts reflected the breadth and depth of research presented at the BSACI conference, which continues to grow and will move to a new, larger venue next year. Please mark 16–18 October at the International Convention Centre in Newport, Wales in your diary! The Cochrane review findings are striking. Not so much for the findings on effectiveness and safety of topical eczema treatments, but for the lack of independence and transparency in the included clinical trials. Eczema is a common, burdensome condition—probably the most burdensome skin condition affecting humans—and topical anti-inflammatory treatments have been used for generations to manage eczema symptoms. In this first comprehensive Cochrane review of the topic, authors identified almost 400 randomised controlled trials in over 50,000 people with eczema. One might hope that such a significant human effort would have yielded some reliable information to guide clinician, carers and people with eczema in making treatment decisions. However, the standout finding in this review was the lack of transparency in the field (Figure 1). Risk of bias was judged to be high in 89% of trials, with the most common issue being concern about selective reporting. While older clinical trials would not be expected to register their plans on a public clinical trial registry or to make their protocol publicly available—it is of some concern that even the modern trials commonly lacked appropriate trial registration. Trial findings were also rarely reported completely, meaning that for many trials and outcomes, it was not possible to include data in meta-analysis. A common issue here was trialists not stating the number of participants evaluated for an outcome.</p><p>This Cochrane review is a good example of the ways in which scientific progress, clinical practice and the health of relevant populations are held back when clinical trials are not conducted and reported in a transparent manner. It is relevant that only a tiny minority of these trials were funded independently—where stated, the funder was almost always the manufacturer of one of the topical treatments being tested. It is well-established that clinical trials funded in this way tend to report findings as more favourable, and in commercial trials, there are also obvious incentives for non-transparent reporting, unless this is legally mandated. While it is for the lawyers and regulators to legislate and oversee compliance with transparent reporting of clinical trials, journals also have a place in promoting better clinical trial practice. This is why <i>Clinical & Experimental Allergy</i> places great emphasis on transparency in reporting, especially for potentially influenti
{"title":"Research Integrity in the Field of Atopic Dermatitis Treatment","authors":"Robert J. Boyle, Mohamed H. Shamji","doi":"10.1111/cea.14601","DOIUrl":"10.1111/cea.14601","url":null,"abstract":"<p>In this month's issue of <i>Clinical and Experimental Allergy</i>, we highlight the prize-winners from the recent highly successful BSACI conference and present a Cochrane systematic review of topical anti-inflammatory treatments for eczema (atopic dermatitis). Prize-winner abstracts reflected the breadth and depth of research presented at the BSACI conference, which continues to grow and will move to a new, larger venue next year. Please mark 16–18 October at the International Convention Centre in Newport, Wales in your diary! The Cochrane review findings are striking. Not so much for the findings on effectiveness and safety of topical eczema treatments, but for the lack of independence and transparency in the included clinical trials. Eczema is a common, burdensome condition—probably the most burdensome skin condition affecting humans—and topical anti-inflammatory treatments have been used for generations to manage eczema symptoms. In this first comprehensive Cochrane review of the topic, authors identified almost 400 randomised controlled trials in over 50,000 people with eczema. One might hope that such a significant human effort would have yielded some reliable information to guide clinician, carers and people with eczema in making treatment decisions. However, the standout finding in this review was the lack of transparency in the field (Figure 1). Risk of bias was judged to be high in 89% of trials, with the most common issue being concern about selective reporting. While older clinical trials would not be expected to register their plans on a public clinical trial registry or to make their protocol publicly available—it is of some concern that even the modern trials commonly lacked appropriate trial registration. Trial findings were also rarely reported completely, meaning that for many trials and outcomes, it was not possible to include data in meta-analysis. A common issue here was trialists not stating the number of participants evaluated for an outcome.</p><p>This Cochrane review is a good example of the ways in which scientific progress, clinical practice and the health of relevant populations are held back when clinical trials are not conducted and reported in a transparent manner. It is relevant that only a tiny minority of these trials were funded independently—where stated, the funder was almost always the manufacturer of one of the topical treatments being tested. It is well-established that clinical trials funded in this way tend to report findings as more favourable, and in commercial trials, there are also obvious incentives for non-transparent reporting, unless this is legally mandated. While it is for the lawyers and regulators to legislate and oversee compliance with transparent reporting of clinical trials, journals also have a place in promoting better clinical trial practice. This is why <i>Clinical & Experimental Allergy</i> places great emphasis on transparency in reporting, especially for potentially influenti","PeriodicalId":10207,"journal":{"name":"Clinical and Experimental Allergy","volume":"54 12","pages":"950-952"},"PeriodicalIF":6.3,"publicationDate":"2024-12-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/cea.14601","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"142799666","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Lichen Li, Dean J. Naisbitt, Yonghu Sun, Furen Zhang
The cover image is based on the article Pathomechanism of Adverse Reactions to Biological Treatment of Inflammatory Skin Conditions by Lichen Li et al., https://doi.org/10.1111/cea.14583.