ArticleDer Hautarzt; Zeitschrift fur Dermatologie, Venerologie, und verwandte Gebiete2014
[Sting challenge: indications and execution].
Article in Der Hautarzt; Zeitschrift fur Dermatologie, Venerologie, und verwandte Gebiete, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 16 citations in OpenAlex.
- Species-specific outcomes in wasp sting challenges during venom immunotherapy and their respective follow-up.Allergologie select · 2026Article
- Hymenoptera Venom Immunotherapy in Dogs: Safety and Clinical Efficacy.Animals : an open access journal from MDPI · 2023Article
- Impact of specific immunotherapy and sting challenge on the quality of life in patients with hymenoptera venom allergy.The World Allergy Organization journal · 2021Article
- Benefits and limitations of sting challenge in hymenoptera venom allergy.Allergologie select · 2021Article
- Component Resolved Diagnosis in Hymenoptera Anaphylaxis.Current allergy and asthma reports · 2017Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundVenom immunotherapy (VIT) is a highly effective treatment for Hymenoptera venom allergy. However, VIT treatment may fail to protect against systemic reactions. Many in vitro parameters as well as skin test reactivity change during the course of VIT; however, similar to the pre-treatment situation, there is no in vitro parameter, which reliably indicates the clinical reactivity of a sensitized patient. Sting challenge with the culprit insect is the only tool which reveals clinical reactivity.
objectivesTo define the indications, contraindications and performance of sting challenge tests. MATERIAL AND
methodsReview of the literature.
resultsSting challenge tests are not recommended for individuals who are not being treated with VIT, and are also not recommended as a routine diagnostic method for patients who have stopped VIT. Indications of sting challenge are identification of patients who are not protected, and quality of life issues. Major contraindications of sting challenge are repeated side effects or a field sting reaction during maintenance VIT, and unstable medical disease. Risk factors for treatment failure are mastocytosis, bee venom allergy, repeated side effects of VIT, and ACE inhibitors. Protection rate is significantly better in patients who are treated with elevated venom dose, with double VIT, and longer treatment duration.
conclusionsFor the majority of patients quality of life will significantly improve after tolerated sting challenge. A sting challenge test is particularly important in those patients who are at increased risk due their increased risk of treatment failure. If in patients with risk factors for treatment failure, VIT is done with elevated dose or if no risk factors are present, a sting challenge may not be needed. VIT with an elevated dose may prevent or correct treatment failure.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.