ArticleHandbook of experimental pharmacology2022
Update on Type-1 Allergy Diagnostics.
Article in Handbook of experimental pharmacology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- In vitro IgE diagnostics in inhalant allergy: Plant and mold allergens.Allergologie select · 2026Review
- [Practical implementation of skin testing in immediate-type allergies].Dermatologie (Heidelberg, Germany) · 2025Article
- Occupational anaphylaxis: A Position Paper of the German Society of Allergology and Clinical Immunology (DGAKI).Allergologie select · 2024Article
- Food allergy testing in atopic dermatitis.JAAD international · 2022Article
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
Diagnostics in type-1 allergy rely on medical history and clinical examination. Extent and severity of signs and symptoms can be documented by standardized scores and questionnaires. Both skin prick test and intradermal test are useful for search of immunoglobulin E-mediated sensitizations but the availability of commercially available diagnostic extracts has been markedly reduced during the last years. Investigation of total and of specific serum IgE is the most important in vitro diagnostic analyte in type-1 allergy. Identification of the individual molecules to which patients are sensitized, known as molecular or component-resolved diagnostics (CRD), has recently markedly improved management of type-1 allergy to pollen, food and hymenoptera venoms. Main features of CRD are increased analytic sensitivity, detection of cross-reactivity and determination of individual sensitization profiles which allow for risk assessment and facilitate decisions for or against allergen immunotherapy. Basophil activation test as well as determination of selected biomarkers (e.g. tryptase) may also be helpful in some cases. If any allergy test is positive, one will have to distinguish reactions, which are clinically relevant, from those, which are not. In vivo provocation tests (e.g. nasal provocation, oral drug or food challenge) may help to clarify the relevance of a sensitization.
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.