ArticleClinical and translational allergy2025
The diagnosis of lipid transfer protein allergy-Discriminating between sensitisation and allergy.
Article in Clinical and translational allergy, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Basophil Activation Test (BAT) for Diagnosing LTP Food Allergy: Where Do We Stand Now? A Systematic Review.International journal of molecular sciences · 2025Pooled it
- The diagnosis of lipid transfer protein allergy-Discriminating between sensitisation and allergy.Clinical and translational allergy · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundSensitisation to Lipid Transfer Proteins (LTP), usually ascertained by undertaking a test to the peach LTP allergen Pru p 3, is common but does not always indicate LTP allergy. Improving the diagnostic process would ensure the correct diagnosis and management of this complex condition.
objectivesTo determine the diagnostic value of Pru p 3 and other LTP component allergens in UK adults.
methodsA retrospective review was undertaken of adults referred to the Allergy Unit at the Royal Brompton & Harefield Hospitals (RBHT) London (UK), between 2012 and 2022 who were sensitised to Pru p 3. Those with a final diagnosis of LTP allergy were compared to those sensitized to Pru p 3 but not diagnosed with LTP allergy.
resultsOf 285 patients with a positive Pru p 3, 157 (55%) were diagnosed with LTP allergy. LTP allergic patients were more likely to have a higher level of Pru p 3, and a lower level of total IgE. The ratio of Pru p 3:total IgE was the most accurate diagnostic marker of LTP allergy, with a receiver operating characteristics AUC of 0.880. A diagnosis of LTP allergy was also significantly associated with sensitisation to the LTP in peanut (Ara h 9, p < 0.001), and hazelnut (Cor a 8, p < 0.001).
conclusionSensitisation to Pru p 3 may not always indicate an LTP allergy. Our data suggests that the Pru p 3:total IgE ratio, and sensitisation to Ara h 9 and Cor a 8 can support the diagnosis of LTP allergy in individuals sensitised to Pru p 3.
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.