1. Model for outcomes assessment of antihistamine use for seasonal allergic rhinitis 
Robert P. Harvey, MD, Carolyn Comer, MD, Barbara Sanders, MD, Ross Westley, MD, William Marsh, MD, Howard Shapiro, PhD, Matthew Wiener, PharmD 
Journal of Allergy and Clinical Immunology 
Volume 97, Issue 6, Pages (June 1996)
DOI: /S (96)
Copyright © 1996 Mosby, Inc. Terms and Conditions

2. FIG. 1
Mean of patients’ evaluations of study drugs. *p < 0.01 cetirizine versus terfenadine; p < 0.05 chlorpheniramine versus terfenadine.
Journal of Allergy and Clinical Immunology  , DOI: ( /S (96) )
Copyright © 1996 Mosby, Inc. Terms and Conditions

3. FIG. 2
Mean of physicians’ evaluations of study drugs. *p < 0.01 cetirizine versus terfenadine; p < 0.05 chlorpheniramine versus terfenadine. †p < 0.01 cetirizine versus terfenadine and chlorpheniramine versus terfenadine.
Journal of Allergy and Clinical Immunology  , DOI: ( /S (96) )
Copyright © 1996 Mosby, Inc. Terms and Conditions

4. FIG. 3
Comparative patient satisfaction with treatment at the end of phase I.
Journal of Allergy and Clinical Immunology  , DOI: ( /S (96) )
Copyright © 1996 Mosby, Inc. Terms and Conditions

5. FIG. 4
Mean of the total RQLQ scores for study drugs. *The lower the score, the greater the quality of life. †p < 0.05 cetirizine versus terfenadine. ‡p < 0.05 cetirizine versus chlorpheniramine.
Journal of Allergy and Clinical Immunology  , DOI: ( /S (96) )
Copyright © 1996 Mosby, Inc. Terms and Conditions

6. FIG. 5
Rank percentages from the sensitivity analysis. For each combination, the drug with the highest utility score (best performance) is given the rank of 1, the drug with the next highest utility score is given the rank of 2, and the drug with the lowest utility score is given the rank of 3.
Journal of Allergy and Clinical Immunology  , DOI: ( /S (96) )
Copyright © 1996 Mosby, Inc. Terms and Conditions