ArticleJournal of asthma and allergy2026
Comparative Evaluation of Four Multiple Allergen Simultaneous Test (MAST) Systems in Clinical Practice.
Article in Journal of asthma and allergy, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: Multiple allergen simultaneous tests (MASTs) are widely used for screening allergen-specific immunoglobulin E owing to their convenience and cost-effectiveness. Recently, several automated MAST analyzers with expanded allergen panels have become available in Korea; however, comparative evaluations remain limited. Patients and Methods: In this retrospective study, 200 residual serum samples from patients tested for suspected allergic diseases at a single tertiary hospital were analyzed. Each sample was tested using AdvanSure Alloscreen, AdvanSure Alloscreen Max108, SGTi-Allergy Screen, and PROTIA Allergy-Q. Semi-quantitative results (classes 0-6) were interpreted as positive at class ≥2. Concordance rates and Cohen's kappa coefficients were calculated. Results: Overall agreement between the MAST systems was high (91-93%), with Cohen's kappa values indicating substantial to almost perfect agreement (κ = 0.67-0.76). The agreement between AdvanSure Alloscreen and its upgraded version, AdvanSure AlloScreen Max108, was the highest. For common allergens in the Korean population, Conclusion: All four MAST systems demonstrated substantial to near-perfect qualitative agreement. The SGTi-Allergy Screen showed the best concordance with ImmunoCAP, whereas AdvanSure Alloscreen Max108 offered a balanced performance with broader allergen coverage. These findings indicate that laboratories should select a MAST system based on local needs, weighing analytical accuracy, allergen panel breadth, and overall testing efficiency.
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.