ArticlePractical laboratory medicine2016
Comparison and clinical utility evaluation of four multiple allergen simultaneous tests including two newly introduced fully automated analyzers.
Article in Practical laboratory medicine, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 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
10 citing papers in PubMed.
- Concordance between crude extract and component allergens in a multiple allergen simultaneous test: a large-scale retrospective analysis.British journal of biomedical science · 2026Article
- Comparative Evaluation of Four Multiple Allergen Simultaneous Test (MAST) Systems in Clinical Practice.Journal of asthma and allergy · 2026Article
- Impact of CCD Inhibition on Semi-Quantitative Multiple Allergen Simultaneous Test.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Prevalence of Allergen-Specific IgE Positivity and Serum Immunoglobulin E Concentrations of Allergens in Dogs with Suspected Allergic Dermatitis Using the Multiple Allergen Simultaneous Test in South Korea.Veterinary sciences · 2025Article
- Inter-laboratory comparison of semiquantitative allergen-specific Immunoglobulin E test: 7 years of experience in Korea.Journal of clinical laboratory analysis · 2022Article
- Non-association between low vitamin d levels and aeroallergen-positivity evaluated using multiple allergen simultaneous test in Korean adults.Allergy, asthma, and clinical immunology : official journal of the Canadian Society of Allergy and Clinical Immunology · 2021Article
- Evaluation of multiple allergen simultaneous (sIgE) testing compared to intradermal testing in the etiological diagnosis of atopic dermatitis in horses.Journal of veterinary science · 2019Article
- Clinical Features and Culprit Food Allergens of Korean Adult Food Allergy Patients: A Cross-Sectional Single-Institute Study.Allergy, asthma & immunology research · 2019Article
- Comparison of the clinical characteristics of bilateral and unilateral fungal balls in Korea.European archives of oto-rhino-laryngology : official journal of the European Federation of Oto-Rhino-Laryngological Societies (EUFOS) : affiliated with the German Society for Oto-Rhino-Laryngology - Head and Neck Surgery · 2019Article
- Allergen Microarrays for In Vitro Diagnostics of Allergies: Comparison with ImmunoCAP and AdvanSure.Annals of laboratory medicine · 2018Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundWe compared the diagnostic performances of two newly introduced fully automated multiple allergen simultaneous tests (MAST) analyzers with two conventional MAST assays.
methodsThe serum samples from a total of 53 and 104 patients were tested for food panels and inhalant panels, respectively, in four analyzers including AdvanSure AlloScreen (LG Life Science, Korea), AdvanSure Allostation Smart II (LG Life Science), PROTIA Allergy-Q (ProteomeTech, Korea), and RIDA Allergy Screen (R-Biopharm, Germany). We compared not only the total agreement percentages but also positive propensities among four analyzers.
resultsEvaluation of AdvanSure Allostation Smart II as upgraded version of AdvanSure AlloScreen revealed good concordance with total agreement percentages of 93.0% and 92.2% in food and inhalant panel, respectively. Comparisons of AdvanSure Allostation Smart II or PROTIA Allergy-Q with RIDA Allergy Screen also showed good concordance performance with positive propensities of two new analyzers for common allergens (
conclusionsAdvanSure Allostation Smart II and PROTIA Allergy-Q presented favorable agreement performances with RIDA Allergy Screen, although positive propensities were noticed in common allergens.
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.