ArticleThe British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners2017
Developing and testing of a screening tool to predict people without IgE-mediated allergy: a quantitative analysis of the predictive value of a screening tool.
Article in The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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 4 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundConsultations in primary care for allergies are common. It can be difficult to differentiate between IgE-mediated (atopic) symptoms - which respond to allergen-specific interventions - and those that are non-atopic, without performing objective tests that are largely unavailable in UK general practice.
aimTo develop and test a screening tool that can accurately discriminate between atopic and non-atopic individuals. DESIGN AND
settingA validation study that took place in 2012 in adult volunteers aged >16 years in Scotland.
methodA questionnaire screening tool was developed using questions from a large cohort study and through consultation with experts. Participants answered the questions and had skin prick tests for four aeroallergens (house dust mite, cat, dog, and mixed grasses). Participants were classified as atopic if any average wheal diameter was ≥3 mm bigger than the negative control. Sensitivity, specificity, and positive and negative predictive values of individual and combinations of questions were calculated.
resultsIn all, 143 participants completed the questionnaire and underwent skin prick testing. Of these, 81 (56.6%) were atopic. Negative predictive values for the individual questions ranged from 48.2% (55 not atopic out of 114 negative answers) to 72.0% (18/25). An optimum combination of four questions was identified, in which a negative answer to all four questions was reported by 24 participants, 21 (87.5%) of whom were not atopic.
conclusionThe authors have identified a set of questions that correctly predict negative skin prick tests to common aeroallergens 88% of the time. These may be useful to exclude patients who do not warrant further investigation and who can reliably be advised that allergen avoidance is neither necessary nor helpful.
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.