Trial reportImmunity, inflammation and disease2020
Successful introduction of milk after a negative double-blind placebo-controlled food challenge test is independent of the total dose and milk product used during the challenge test.
Trial report in Immunity, inflammation and disease, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Successful introduction of milk after a negative double-blind placebo-controlled food challenge test is independent of the total dose and milk product used during the challenge test.Immunity, inflammation and disease · 2020Trial
- Differential diagnostics of food allergy as based on provocation tests and laboratory diagnostic assays.Postepy dermatologii i alergologii · 2023Review
- Improving Successful Introduction after a Negative Food Challenge Test: How to Achieve the Best Result?Nutrients · 2020Article
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 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundFailure of milk introduction after a negative food challenge test is reported in a substantial number of patients. For this reason, guidelines recommend that the total dose of milk protein for a food challenge test should be comparable to a normal serving.
objectiveOur aim is to compare the success rate of milk introduction after a negative double-blind placebo-controlled challenge test performed with different doses of milk protein and different milk products.
methodsWe conducted a retrospective chart review of 485 patients challenged with a low or high dose of milk protein. Pasteurized milk and milk protein powder were used for the low-dose challenge tests, and condensed milk for the high-dose challenge tests. Successful introduction was defined as regular milk consumption, and discontinuation of further introduction due to the reappearance of symptoms as unsuccessful introduction. We also evaluated the association between milk products and successful introduction.
resultsThe outcome of 288 (59.4%) double-blind placebo-controlled food challenge tests was negative. There were no significant differences between the low and high dose of milk protein in patient characteristics, percentage of patients lost to follow-up (15% vs 20%), in whom introduction had not yet been performed (4% vs 3.1%), reappearance of symptoms (18% vs 17%), and successful introduction (88.0% and 83.4%). Age, gender, specific immunoglobulin E for milk, dose of milk protein, and atopy were not associated with successful introduction. Children who experienced symptoms during the introduction were less likely to consume milk (P < .001). There was a nonsignificant trend toward higher successful introduction rate if pasteurized milk was used as test material compared to milk protein powder, and condensed milk. CONCLUSION AND CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Successful introduction of milk after a negative challenge test is independent of the total dose of milk protein, and milk product used during the challenge test.
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.