Patient Values and Preferences in Chronic Urticaria Treatment
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Importance: Patient and caregiver values and preferences should inform clinical management. An update to the American Academy of Allergy, Asthma & Immunology/American College of Allergy, Asthma and Immunology's Joint Task Force on Practice Parameters guidelines on chronic urticaria (CU) plans to incorporate them; however, a systematic review of evidence on the values and preferences of patients with CU and their caregivers has not been previously available. Objective: To synthesize patient and caregiver values and preferences regarding CU treatment options. Evidence Review: A systematic search was conducted of MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, and CINAHL databases, from inception to May 15, 2025, for studies addressing patient and/or caregiver values and preferences for CU management. Paired reviewers independently screened studies, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias. Thematic and inductive content analysis was used to qualitatively synthesize findings and certainty of evidence was rated per the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation-Confidence in the Evidence from Reviews of Qualitative Research approach. Findings: The search resulted in 18 studies addressing the values and preferences among 28 497 participants. Moderate certainty evidence showed that patients were likely to place a high value on rapid improvement (eg, 2 days to 2 weeks) of disease signs and symptoms, long-term effectiveness, and treatments that were easy to prepare, use, and self-manage-oral or topical treatments were favored over injections, with the least favored being infusions. Low certainty evidence suggested that patients accepted minor feasibility burdens for rapid and sustained symptom relief but prioritized safety and tolerability as the risk or severity of adverse effects (eg, kidney injury, vomiting) increased. Conclusions and Relevance: This systematic review suggests that patients with CU place high value on immediate and sustained hive, itch, and swelling relief, particularly long-term symptom-free periods, but may shift to prioritizing avoiding harms and burdens as the risk and severity of adverse effects increases. These findings may serve as a resource to improve the trustworthiness of recommendations and inform future CU management and research.
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.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.033 | 0.120 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".