ArticleClinical and translational allergy2023
Allergy screening with extract-based skin prick tests demonstrates higher sensitivity over in vitro molecular allergy testing.
Article in Clinical and translational allergy, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed, 18 citations in OpenAlex.
- Article
- Prick test accuracy for Der p components in pediatric rhinitis.European journal of pediatrics · 2025Article
- Artificial Intelligence (AI)-assisted readout method for the evaluation of skin prick automated test results.Nature communications · 2025Article
- Allergies to Allergens from Cats and Dogs: A Review and Update on Sources, Pathogenesis, and Strategies.International journal of molecular sciences · 2024Review
- 360° approach to the patient with mite allergy: from scientific evidence to clinical practice.Frontiers in allergy · 2024Article
- Allergy screening with extract-based skin prick tests demonstrates higher sensitivity over in vitro molecular allergy testing.Clinical and translational allergy · 2023Article
- Evaluation of skin prick location on the forearm using a novel skin prick automated test device.Frontiers in allergy · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundAs extract-based skin testing as well as in vitro tests for major allergens have their own advantages, both procedures are usually performed in routine settings. In times of shortages in medical staff and supplies, we asked ourselves, how many patients would be underdiagnosed, if only one test could be used.
methodsIn a retrospective analysis, we investigated a cohort of 2646 patients seen by a single physician in a large Austrian outpatient allergy clinic in 2018. Only patients with an allergen source-specific history and pairs of extract-based skin prick (SPT) and in vitro molecular allergy tests to major allergens were included.
resultsFor all tested allergen sources, sensitivity was higher for SPT than for sIgE-based molecular allergy testing. Concerning 1006 birch pollen-allergic patients, 791 (78.6%) had positive results with both tests, while 153 (15.2%) only with the SPT and 62 (6.2%) only with the sIgE to Bet v1. The other allergen sources showed similar results: For house dust mite 816/1120 (72.9%), grass pollen 1077/1416 (76.1%) and cat 433/622 (69.6%) remained test-positive with both procedures, whereas in 276 (24.6%), 224 (15.8%) and 173 (27.8%) times only the SPT and 28 (2.5%), 115 (8.1%) and 16 (2.6%) times only the sIgE to Der p1/2/23, Phl p1/5 and Fel d1 showed a positive result. Each comparison was statistically significant (each p < 0.0001, Chi-squared test).
conclusionsScreening for allergy with major molecular allergens has lower sensitivity when compared with extract-based skin tests. A combination of both is required for an optimal sensitivity.
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.