ArticleClinical and molecular allergy : CMA2016
Comparing the ability of molecular diagnosis and CAP-inhibition in identifying the really causative venom in patients with positive tests to Vespula and Polistes species.
Article in Clinical and molecular allergy : CMA, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 16 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
16 citing papers in PubMed, 47 citations in OpenAlex.
- Diagnostics and monitoring in Hymenoptera venom allergy: current and future perspectives.Frontiers in allergy · 2026Review
- Comparison of basophil activation testing and component-resolved diagnosis in patients with cross-reactive intradermal results after anaphylactic reactions to hymenoptera venom.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Molecular Diagnosis in Hymenoptera Allergy: Comparison of Euroline DPA-Dx and ImmunoCAP.Toxins · 2025Article
- Biomarkers for the Molecular Diagnosis of IgE-Mediated Hymenoptera Venom Allergy in Clinical Practice.International journal of molecular sciences · 2024Review
- Hymenoptera venom allergy in children.Italian journal of pediatrics · 2024Review
- Review
- Investigation on the Effect of Age and Gender on Hypersensitivity Reactions due to Allergens Injection in Iraqi Population.Archives of Razi Institute · 2022Article
- The mitogenome of a medically important paper wasp,Mitochondrial DNA. Part B, Resources · 2022Article
- Article
- Antigen 5 Allergens of Hymenoptera Venoms and Their Role in Diagnosis and Therapy of Venom Allergy.Current allergy and asthma reports · 2020Review
- Article
- A WAO - ARIA - GAThe World Allergy Organization journal · 2020Article
- IgE allergy diagnostics and other relevant tests in allergy, a World Allergy Organization position paper.The World Allergy Organization journal · 2020Article
- Precision Medicine in Hymenoptera Venom Allergy: Diagnostics, Biomarkers, and Therapy of Different Endotypes and Phenotypes.Frontiers in immunology · 2020Review
- Immunology of Bee Venom.Clinical reviews in allergy & immunology · 2018Review
- Which immunotherapy product is better for patients allergic to Polistes venom? A laboratory and clinical study.PloS one · 2017Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundCross-reactivity among Hymenoptera venoms is an important issue when prescribing venom immunotherapy (VIT). Using all venoms eliciting a positive response results in treatment excess and unjustified cost increase. The first in vitro method that helped to identify the really causative venom was RAST-inhibition, but in latest years also molecular allergy (MA) diagnostics, that detects specific sIgE to single venom allergens, was introduced. We compared the two methods in patients with double sensitization to Vespula spp. and Polistes spp.
methodsFifty-four patients with anaphylactic reactions to Hymenoptera stings and positive results to skin tests and sIgE measurement with whole venom from Vespula spp. and Polistes dominula were included in the study. Sera from all patients were analyzed by CAP-inhibition (Thermo Fisher Scientific, Uppsala, Sweden) and MA diagnostics with recombinant Ves v 1, Ves v 5 and Pol d 5.
resultsBy the data obtained from MA technique, VIT would have been prescribed to 7 patients for Polistes, to 6 for Vespula, and to 41 for both venoms. With the data from CAP inhibition, it would have been a prescription to 15 patients for Polistes, to 28 for Vespula, and to 11 for both venoms. A good concordance between the results of MA and CAP-inhibition was found only when the value in kU/l of Ves v 5 were about twice those of Pol d 5, and vice versa.
conclusionsThese findings suggest that in the choice of the venom to be used for VIT CAP-inhibition remains a pivotal tool, because the significance of in vitro inhibition is definite and provides a diagnostic importance higher than MA in patients with positive tests to both Vespula and Polistes spp.
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.