ArticleDiagnostics (Basel, Switzerland)2024
The Role of the Basophil Activation Test in the Diagnosis of Drug-Induced Anaphylaxis.
Article in Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland), 2024. 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.
- Review
- Drug-induced anaphylaxis: Molecular pathophysiology, diagnosis, and management.Asia Pacific allergy · 2026Article
- Advances in Laboratory Diagnosis.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Immediate allergic hypersensitivity reactions (anaphylactic shock) to intramuscular dexamethasone in an asthmatic child: a case report.Journal of medical case reports · 2025Article
- Inhaled Allergy Diagnostics and Treatment in a Polluted Environment.International journal of molecular sciences · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
The diagnosis of drug-induced anaphylaxis (DIA) is a serious health problem. The Basophil activation test (BAT) is considered a specific in vitro provocation, and compared to in vivo provocation, it is more convenient, cheaper, and safer for the patient. This study aimed to evaluate the usefulness of the BAT in the diagnosis of DIA. This study included 150 patients referred to a reference allergy clinic with suspected drug allergies. All patients underwent a detailed clinical evaluation supplemented with the BAT. Positive BAT results were obtained in two out of 21 patients who were to receive the COVID-19 vaccine. The sensitivity and specificity of the BAT were 40% and 75% for the COVID-19 vaccine, 67% and 58% for DMG PEG 2000, and 100% and 75% for PEG 4000, respectively. Nine out of 34 patients with suspected antibiotic allergies had positive BAT results with 14 different antibiotics. Positive BAT results were also obtained with NSAIDs in two patients and with local anesthetics in three patients. The confirmation of allergy by the BAT improves the safety profile of the diagnostic work-up as it may defer the need for drug provocation, preventing potential anaphylactic reactions.
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.