Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36973961›Full record

ArticleClinical and translational allergy2023

Molecular allergy diagnosis is sensitive and avoids misdiagnosis in patients sensitized to seasonal allergens.

Lukas Koch, Karin Laipold, Lisa Arzt-Gradwohl, Eva Maria Sturm, Werner Aberer, Martina Aumayr, Wolfgang Hemmer, Urban Čerpes, Gunter J Sturm

Open access · goldFull text read
In one paragraph

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 10 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing papers in PubMed
2.2field-weighted citation impact, top 13% 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, 9 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. A novel recognition of the major allergen, Hum j 1, fromThe World Allergy Organization journal · 2025
    Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
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

9 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Lukas KochDepartment of Dermatology and Venereology, Medical University of Graz, Graz, Austria.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2091-5411
Karin LaipoldDepartment of Dermatology and Venereology, Medical University of Graz, Graz, Austria.
Lisa Arzt-GradwohlDepartment of Dermatology and Venereology, Medical University of Graz, Graz, Austria.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5489-2070
Eva Maria SturmOtto-Loewi Research Center for Vascular Biology, Immunology and Inflammation, Division of Pharmacology, Medical University of Graz, Graz, Austria.
Werner AbererDepartment of Dermatology and Venereology, Medical University of Graz, Graz, Austria.
Martina AumayrMacroArray Diagnostics GmbH, Vienna, Austria.
Wolfgang HemmerFloridsdorf Allergy Center, Vienna, Austria.
Urban ČerpesDepartment of Dermatology and Venereology, Medical University of Graz, Graz, Austria.
Gunter J SturmDepartment of Dermatology and Venereology, Medical University of Graz, Graz, Austria.
Medical University of Graz · ATLudwig Boltzmann Institute Applied Diagnostics · AT

Funding

MacroArray Diagnostics
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe specificity of extract-based pollen allergy diagnosis is decreased due to cross-reactivity via cross-reactive carbohydrate determinants (CCDs) or panallergens such as profilins or polcalcins. This study aimed to explore the prevalence of sensitization to seasonal extracts, CCDs, profilin and polcalcin and investigate the sensitivity and specificity of seasonal molecular allergy diagnosis (MAD) using commercially available test methods.

methods2948 patients were screened for specific immunoglobulin E to ash, birch, mugwort, ragweed and timothy grass pollen extracts and grouped according to the number of positive tests (1-5). 100 patients from each group and a control group were randomly selected to calculate the prevalence of CCD and panallergen sensitization. With 742 patients, sensitivity and specificity of MAD (Alt a 1, Fra/Ole e 1, Bet v 1, Phl p 1, Art v 1, and Amb a 1) was determined.

results1627 patients (55.2%) were positive to at least one, and 1002 patients (34.0%) were positive to multiple of the five pollen allergens investigated; 18.5% of the pollen-sensitized patients had sensitization to CCDs or panallergens. Specifically, sensitization to CCDs, profilins, and polcalcins was observed in 8.7%, 10.9%, and 2.9% of these patients, respectively. The sensitivity of MAD was high, with sensitivities between 96.2% and 100% using ImmunoCAP and 91.5% and 100% using ALEX

conclusionsDue to cross-reactivity, about one-fifth of pollen-sensitized patients is at risk of misdiagnosis. However, MAD is sensitive, specific and helps to avoid misdiagnosis and select primary allergen sources for immunotherapy.

Indexed as

cross-reactivitymolecular allergy diagnosispollenseasonal aeroallergenssensitivity

Identifiers

PMID36973961
PMCPMC10011670
OpenAlexW4324144945

What OpenQuestion holds

Textfull text, public
LicenceCC BY
measurements read241
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.