Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37504263›Full record

ReviewCurrent issues in molecular biology2023

Selected Technical Aspects of Molecular Allergy Diagnostics.

Kinga Lis, Zbigniew Bartuzi

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Current issues in molecular biology, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
15citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

15 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Molecular Pharmacology at the Crossroads of Precision Medicine.Current issues in molecular biology · 2025
    Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Gastropod Allergy: A Comprehensive Narrative Review.Current issues in molecular biology · 2024
    Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. 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

2 authors.

Kinga LisDepartment of Allergology, Clinical Immunology and Internal Medicine, Ludwik Rydygier Collegium Medicum in Bydgoszcz, Nicolaus Copernicus University in Toruń, 85-168 Bydgoszcz, Poland.ORCID 0000-0003-2651-8468
Zbigniew BartuziDepartment of Allergology, Clinical Immunology and Internal Medicine, Ludwik Rydygier Collegium Medicum in Bydgoszcz, Nicolaus Copernicus University in Toruń, 85-168 Bydgoszcz, Poland.ORCID 0000-0001-8328-1386

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Diagnosis of allergic diseases is a complex, multi-stage process. It often requires the use of various diagnostic tools. The in vitro diagnostics (IVD), which includes various laboratory tests, is one of the stages of this process. Standard laboratory tests include the measurement of the serum concentration of specific immunoglobulin E (sIgE) for selected allergens, full allergen extracts and/or single allergen components (molecules). The measurement of IgE sIgE to the allergen components is called molecular allergy diagnosis. During the standard laboratory diagnostic process, various models of immunochemical tests are used, which enable the measurement of sIgE for single allergens (one-parameter tests, singleplex) or IgE specific for many different allergens (multi-parameter tests, multiplex) in one test. Currently, there are many different test kits available, validated for IVD, which differ in the method type and allergen profile. The aim of the manuscript is to present various technical aspects related to modern allergy diagnostics, especially in the area of molecular allergy diagnostics.

Indexed as

ALEXallergen componentallergen extractallergyanti-CCDISACmolecular diagnosticsspecific IgE

Identifiers

PMID37504263
PMCPMC10378047

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.