ReviewClinical reviews in allergy & immunology2014
Common methodologies in the evaluation of food allergy: pitfalls and prospects of food allergy prevalence studies.
Review in Clinical reviews in allergy & immunology, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
8 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- The Prevalence of Tree Nut Allergy: A Systematic Review.Current allergy and asthma reports · 2015Pooled it
- Hereditary angioedema: A national investigation of associated comorbidities and surgical procedures.The World Allergy Organization journal · 2025Article
- Prevalence of reported food allergies in Brazilian preschoolers living in a small Brazilian city.Allergy, asthma, and clinical immunology : official journal of the Canadian Society of Allergy and Clinical Immunology · 2022Article
- Deciphering the black box of food allergy mechanisms.Annals of allergy, asthma & immunology : official publication of the American College of Allergy, Asthma, & Immunology · 2017Review
- The Genetics and Epigenetics of Atopic Dermatitis-Filaggrin and Other Polymorphisms.Clinical reviews in allergy & immunology · 2016Review
- Histamine (Scombroid) Fish Poisoning: a Comprehensive Review.Clinical reviews in allergy & immunology · 2016Review
- The challenge of treating orphan disease.Clinical reviews in allergy & immunology · 2014Article
- The changing geoepidemiology of food allergies.Clinical reviews in allergy & immunology · 2014Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Global and regional studies on the prevalence of food allergies are plagued by inconsistent methodologies, variations in interpretation of results, and non-standardized study design. Hence, it becomes difficult to compare the prevalence of food allergies in different communities. This information would be useful in providing critical data that will enhance research to elucidate the nature of food allergies, and the role of gene-environment interactions in the sensitization of children and adults to foods. Testing methodologies range from questionnaires to objective in vitro and in vivo testing, to the gold standard, double-blind placebo-controlled food challenge (DBPCFC). Although considered the most accurate and reliable method in detecting the prevalence of food allergy, DBPCFC is not always practical in epidemiological studies of food allergy. On the other hand, multiple logistic regression studies have been done to determine predictability of the outcome of food challenges, and it appears that skin prick testing and in vitro-specific serum IgE are the best predictors. Future studies directed towards confirming the validity of these methods as well as developing algorithms to predict the food challenge outcomes are required, as they may someday become accessory tools to complement DBPCFC.
Indexed as
Identifiers
23179516What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.