Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32400130›Full record

ArticleAllergy, asthma & immunology research2020

Basophil Activation Test Based on CD203c Expression in the Diagnosis of Fish Allergy.

Ryo Imakiire, Takao Fujisawa, Mizuho Nagao, Reiko Tokuda, Tomoki Hattori, Keigo Kainuma, Yoshifumi Kawano

Open access · diamondAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Allergy, asthma & immunology research, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing papers in PubMed
2.6field-weighted citation impact, top 10% 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

10 citing papers in PubMed, 23 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Review
  5. Recent update on the management of anaphylaxis.Clinical and experimental emergency medicine · 2021
    Article
  6. Allergenicity and Stability of 6 New Korean Bony Fish Extracts.Allergy, asthma & immunology research · 2021
    Article
  7. IgE-Mediated Fish Allergy in Children.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2021
    Review
  8. Review
  9. Improving Diagnostic Accuracy in Food Allergy.The journal of allergy and clinical immunology. In practice · 2021
    Review
  10. Biomarkers in oral immunotherapy.Journal of Zhejiang University. Science. B
    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 2 institutions in 1 country.

Ryo ImakiireInstitute for Clinical Research, National Hospital Organization Mie National Hospital, Tsu, Japan.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8799-9408
Takao FujisawaInstitute for Clinical Research, National Hospital Organization Mie National Hospital, Tsu, Japan. eosinophilosophy@gmail.com.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9196-9436
Mizuho NagaoInstitute for Clinical Research, National Hospital Organization Mie National Hospital, Tsu, Japan.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3557-8761
Reiko TokudaInstitute for Clinical Research, National Hospital Organization Mie National Hospital, Tsu, Japan.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1746-8091
Tomoki HattoriInstitute for Clinical Research, National Hospital Organization Mie National Hospital, Tsu, Japan.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1137-1371
Keigo KainumaInstitute for Clinical Research, National Hospital Organization Mie National Hospital, Tsu, Japan.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9036-5550
Yoshifumi KawanoDepartment of Pediatrics, Kagoshima University Graduate School of Medicine, Kagoshima, Japan.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2365-8377
National Mie Hospital · JPKagoshima University · JP

Funding

Japan Agency for Medical Research and Development
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeThe basophil activation test (BAT) has been reported to be useful for the diagnosis of various food allergies, such as allergy to peanut, but not to fish. This study aimed to evaluate the diagnostic performance of the BAT for fish allergy.

methodsWe performed a retrospective review of patients with fish allergy who underwent the BAT using a panel of fish extracts (15 kinds) to examine the differential reactivity to several species of fish. The BAT score for each extract was expressed as the ratio of CD203chigh% with the extract to that with anti-IgE antibody. Clinical reactivity to each fish was confirmed by positive oral food challenge or a typical history of fish-induced immediate allergy symptoms. Receiver-operating-characteristic (ROC) analysis was performed to evaluate the diagnostic performance.

resultsFifty-one patients with fish allergy were analyzed. Using extracts of 15 species of fish, the BAT was performed a total of 184 times on the patients. Clinical allergy to each species of fish was confirmed in 90 (48.9%) of those tests. ROC analysis yielded high areas under the curve for the BAT scores for the 5 most common fish species (0.72-0.88). The diagnostic accuracy ranged from 0.74 to 0.86. Using a tentative cutoff value of 0.3 deduced from the ROC analyses of the 5 fish species, the accuracy for other fish allergic reactions was generally high (0.6-1.0), except the fish tested in a small number of patients.

conclusionsThe BAT score based on CD203c expression may be useful for fish allergy diagnosis, especially since a large variety of fish can be tested by the BAT using fish extracts prepared by a simple method.

Indexed as

allergen extractBasophil activation testCD203cfish allergy

Identifiers

PMID32400130
PMCPMC7224992
OpenAlexW3023237949

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.