Physical urticaria: Review on classification, triggers and management with special focus on prevalence including a meta-analysis
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Physical urticaria (PU) is a subset of chronic urticaria (CU) induced by physical stimuli. To date, there is no consensus in the literature on the prevalence of PU among patients with CU. OBJECTIVES: Our objective was to review the clinical presentation, diagnosis and management of PU and to estimate the prevalence of PU in CU patients. METHODS: We performed a narrative review of PU and conducted a systemic review and meta-analysis to determine the pooled estimates of the prevalence of PU among patients with CU in the literature up to September 2014. We searched four databases (PubMed, Ovid MEDLINE and Web of Science) of published work for which full text was available in English or French. Studies were eligible if they measured the prevalence of PU in adults or children with CU worldwide and ineligible if CU cases were not differentiated from total urticaria cases. Meta-analysis was conducted using Stata, version 12.0 (StataCorp, College Station, TX). In addition, the quality and validity of the articles included in the meta-analysis was assessed. RESULTS: Ten studies were included in our meta-analysis. Sample sizes ranged from 202 to 4157 patients. The pooled prevalence estimate of PU including and excluding cholinergic forms among all cases of CU were 13.1% (95% CI: 12.5, 13.6) and 14.9% (95% CI: 14.3, 15.7), respectively. CONCLUSION: Our results must be viewed with circumspection because of the small number of eligible articles and heterogeneity among studies. Even so, the results suggest that PU is an important subset of CU and that physicians should be aware of this important condition in order to manage patients appropriately.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it