Your new experience awaits. Try the new design now and help us make it even better

CORRECTION article

Front. Allergy, 25 July 2025

Sec. Allergen Immunotherapy

Volume 6 - 2025 | https://doi.org/10.3389/falgy.2025.1652198

Correction: Efficacy of index of reactivity-liquid sublingual immunotherapy in allergic rhinoconjunctivitis: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized studies

This article is a correction to:

  1. Efficacy of index of reactivity (IR) liquid sublingual immunotherapy in allergic rhinoconjunctivitis: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized studies

    1. Read original article
Danilo Di Bona Danilo Di Bona1*Andrea Di BiaseAndrea Di Biase1Giovanni Paoletti,Giovanni Paoletti2,3Rosanna VillaniRosanna Villani1Gaetano ServiddioGaetano Serviddio1Josiane Cognet-SicJosiane Cognet-Sicé4Silvia ScuratiSilvia Scurati4Giorgio Walter Canonica, Giorgio Walter Canonica2,3
  • 1Department of Medical and Surgical Sciences, University of Foggia, Foggia, Italy
  • 2Department of Biomedical Sciences, Humanitas University, Pieve Emanuele, Italy
  • 3Personalized Medicine, Asthma and Allergy, Humanitas Clinical and Research Center, IRCCS, Rozzano, Italy
  • 4Integrated Health Care Department, Stallergenes Greer, Antony, France

A Correction on

Efficacy of index of reactivity-liquid sublingual immunotherapy in allergic rhinoconjunctivitis: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized studies

By Di Bona D, Di Biase A, Paoletti G, Villani R, Serviddio G, Cognet-Sicé J, Scurati S and Canonica GW (2025). Sec. Allergen Immunotherapy. 6. doi: 10.3389/falgy.2025.1597003

In section Methods, subsection Data analysis, paragraph 2: the reference for “In cases where standard errors (SEs) were provided, SDs were calculated using the formula: SD = SE√n” was erroneously written as (13). It should be (15) as stated below.

“In cases where standard errors (SEs) were provided, SDs were calculated using the formula: SD = SE√n (15).”

In section Results, paragraph 3: the references for “Low heterogeneity was observed (Q = 0.37; df = 25; P = 0.22; I² = 20%) but decreased to 0% after excluding three outlier studies” were erroneously written as (26, 29, 42). It should be (28, 31, 44) as stated below.

“Low heterogeneity was observed (Q = 0.37; df = 25; P = 0.22; I² = 20%) but decreased to 0% after excluding three outlier studies (28, 31, 44)”

In section Results, paragraph 6: the references for “However, excluding four influential studies” were erroneously written as (26, 27, 31, 32). It should be (26, 28, 29, 34) as stated below.

“However, excluding four influential studies (26, 28, 29, 34)…”

There was a mistake in the caption of Figure 1 as published. The term “seasonal” was incorrectly inserted in the sentence “Meta-analysis of 25 RCTs of IR-SLIT-liquid vs. placebo for seasonal allergic rhinoconjunctivitis.” and should be deleted. The corrected caption of Figure 1 appears below.

“Meta-analysis of 25 RCTs of IR-SLIT-liquid vs. placebo for allergic rhinoconjunctivitis. The SMD and 95% CI for the effect of treatment on symptom score (SS) are plotted on the graph.”

There was a mistake in the caption of Figure 3 as published. The term “seasonal” was incorrectly inserted in the sentence “Meta-analysis of 20 RCTs of IR-SLIT-liquid vs. placebo for seasonal allergic rhinoconjunctivitis.” and should be deleted. The corrected caption of Figure 3 appears below.

“Meta-analysis of 20 RCTs of IR-SLIT-liquid vs. placebo for allergic rhinoconjunctivitis. The SMD and 95% CI for the effect of treatment on medication score (MS) are plotted on the graph.”

The original version of this article has been updated.

Publisher's note

All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.

Keywords: meta-analysis, randomized controlled trial, rhinitis, allergic, SLIT-liquid, sublingual immunotherapy, systematic review

Citation: Di Bona D, Di Biase A, Paoletti G, Villani R, Serviddio G, Cognet-Sicé J, Scurati S and Canonica GW (2025) Correction: Efficacy of index of reactivity-liquid sublingual immunotherapy in allergic rhinoconjunctivitis: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized studies. Front. Allergy 6:1652198. doi: 10.3389/falgy.2025.1652198

Received: 23 June 2025; Accepted: 8 July 2025;
Published: 25 July 2025.

Edited and Reviewed by: Nikolaos (Nikos) G. Papadopoulos, National and Kapodistrian University of Athens, Greece

Copyright: © 2025 Di Bona, Di Biase, Paoletti, Villani, Serviddio, Cognet-Sicé, Scurati and Canonica. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.

*Correspondence: Danilo Di Bona, ZGFuaWxvLmRpYm9uYUB1bmlmZy5pdA==

Disclaimer: All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article or claim that may be made by its manufacturer is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.