Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30269403›Full record

Trial reportClinical and experimental allergy : journal of the British Society for Allergy and Clinical Immunology2019

Ratios of specific IgG

Mareen R Datema, Esben Eller, Aeilko H Zwinderman, Lars K Poulsen, Serge A Versteeg, Ronald van Ree, Carsten Bindslev-Jensen

Open access · hybridAbstract readClinical Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in Clinical and experimental allergy : journal of the British Society for Allergy and Clinical Immunology, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 21 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
21citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
3.1field-weighted citation impact, top 9% of its field
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

21 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 47 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Ratios of specific IgGClinical and experimental allergy : journal of the British Society for Allergy and Clinical Immunology · 2019
    Trial
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Grand Challenges in Food Allergy.Frontiers in allergy · 2021
    Article
  19. Review
  20. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors at 4 institutions in 2 countries.

Mareen R DatemaDepartment of Experimental Immunology, Academic Medical Center, Amsterdam, the Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0003-2646-9467
Esben EllerDepartment of Dermatology and Allergy Center, Odense Research Center for Anaphylaxis (ORCA), Odense University Hospital, Odense, Denmark.
Aeilko H ZwindermanDepartment of Clinical Epidemiology, Academic Medical Centre, Biostatistics and Bioinformatics, Amsterdam, the Netherlands.
Lars K PoulsenAllergy Clinic, Copenhagen University Hospital at Gentofte, Copenhagen, Denmark.
Serge A VersteegDepartment of Experimental Immunology, Academic Medical Center, Amsterdam, the Netherlands.
Ronald van ReeDepartment of Experimental Immunology, Academic Medical Center, Amsterdam, the Netherlands.
Carsten Bindslev-JensenDepartment of Dermatology and Allergy Center, Odense Research Center for Anaphylaxis (ORCA), Odense University Hospital, Odense, Denmark.
Amsterdam UMC Location University of Amsterdam · NLNetherlands Bioinformatics Centre · NLOdense University Hospital · DKGentofte Hospital · DK

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundIgG

objectiveTo evaluate whether (a) peanut-specific IgG, IgG

methodsSera of 137 patients with challenge-proven peanut allergy and of 25 subjects that tolerated peanut, both with known IgE profiles to peanut extract and five individual peanut allergens, were analyzed for specific IgG and IgG

resultsIgE against Ara h 2 was significantly higher in allergic than in tolerant patients and associated with severity of reactions (P < 0.001) with substantial diagnostic capability (AUC 0.91, 95%CI 0.87-0.96 and 0.80, 95%CI 0.73-0.87, respectively). IgG and IgG

conclusionIgE against Ara h 2 is the best biomarker for predicting peanut challenge outcomes including severity and IgG and IgG

Indexed as

Antibody SpecificitySeverity of Illness Index2S Albumins, PlantAdolescentAdultAntigens, PlantBiomarkersChildChild, PreschoolFemaleHumansImmunoglobulin EImmunoglobulin GInfantMalePeanut Hypersensitivity2S Albumins, PlantAntigens, PlantAra h 2 allergen, Arachis hypogaeaBiomarkersImmunoglobulin EImmunoglobulin GdiagnosisIgEIgG4peanut allergysymptom severity

Identifiers

PMID30269403
PMCPMC7379576
OpenAlexW2894426228

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.