ReviewJournal of AOAC International2020
Review of New Trends in the Analysis of Allergenic Residues in Foods and Cosmetic Products.
Review in Journal of AOAC International, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 23 citations in OpenAlex.
- Toxicological and nutritional evaluation of plant cell cultures from scurvy grass (Frontiers in toxicology · 2025Article
- Mass-Spectrometry-Based Research of Cosmetic Ingredients.Molecules (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Review
- Review
- Development of Multiplex PCR Coupled DNA Chip Technology for Assessment of Endogenous and Exogenous Allergens in GM Soybean.Biosensors · 2021Article
- The History, Present and Future of Allergen Standardization in the United States and Europe.Frontiers in immunology · 2021Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundAllergies represent an important health problem in industrialized countries. Allergen sensitization is an important risk factor for the development of allergic diseases; thus, the identification of an individual's allergen sensitization is essential for the diagnosis and treatment of diseases.
objectiveThis review compares different modern methods applied for the analysis of allergens in various matrices (from 2015 to the end of September 2019).
conclusionsImmunological methods are still most frequently used for detection of allergens. These methods are sensitive, but the lack of specificity and cross-reaction of some antibodies can still be a relevant source of errors. DNA-based methods are fast and reliable for determination of protein allergens, but the epitopes of protein allergens with posttranslational modifications and their changes, originated during various processing, cannot be identified through the use of this method. Methods based on application of biosensors are very rapid and easy to use, and can be readily implemented as screening methods to monitor allergens. Recent developments of new high-resolution MS instruments are encouraging and enable development in the analysis of allergens. Fast, very sensitive, reliable, and accurate detection and quantification of allergens in complex samples can be used in the near future. Mass spectrometry coupled with LC, GC, or electrophoretic methods bring additional advances in allergen analysis. The use of LC-MS or LC-MS/MS for the quantitative detection of allergens in various matrices is at present gaining acceptance as a protein-based confirmatory technique over the routinely performed enzyme-linked immunosorbent assays.
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.