ArticleScientific reports2025
Comparison of basophil activation testing and component-resolved diagnosis in patients with cross-reactive intradermal results after anaphylactic reactions to hymenoptera venom.
Article in Scientific reports, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- In vitro diagnostics in hymenoptera venom allergy: Current concepts and perspectives.Allergologie select · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Hymenoptera venom allergy (HVA) is a significant cause of anaphylaxis, with a broad spectrum of symptoms. Accurate diagnosis is critical for selecting appropriate venom immunotherapy (VIT), yet multiple sensitizations complicate the identification of the culprit Hymenoptera. Component-resolved diagnostics (CRD) and the basophil activation test (BAT) are emerging approaches that may enhance the precision of HVA diagnosis. This study aimed to compare the outcomes of the BAT and CRD tests in patients with reaction to more than one type of Hymenoptera in intradermal test. Following 12 patient's report-based determination of the Hymenoptera types, Intradermal testing with venom extracts from honey bees, paper wasps, and yellow jackets was performed. CRD was conducted using recombinant allergens for each venom, and BAT was performed to assess basophil activation using venom extracts. The intradermal test indicated 10 triple-positive reactions (83.3%) and 2 double-positive reactions (16.7%). In addition, 7 (58.4%) individuals were triple-positive and 5 (41.6%) were double-positive in the CRD test. The BAT had 6 (50.0%) double-positive individuals and 3 (25.0%) single-positive patients. The diagnostic complexity in patients with multi-sensitivity to Hymenoptera venoms is highlighted by the results. While CRD provides a more specific identification of allergenic components, valuable information is offered by the BAT, especially when the clinical diagnosis is uncertain. As a result, relying just on one test seems to have limited diagnostic capabilities and it is more efficient to use many diagnostic tests in order to get a thorough evaluation.
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.