ReviewFrontiers in allergy2026
Diagnostics and monitoring in Hymenoptera venom allergy: current and future perspectives.
Review in Frontiers in 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Hymenoptera stings are a major trigger of IgE-mediated anaphylaxis, yet only a minority of exposed individuals develop systemic reactions, making accurate diagnosis essential but complex. This review synthesizes current evidence across clinical, serologic, cellular and molecular diagnostic modalities in Hymenoptera venom allergy. Clinical history and epidemiologic predictors-such as occupation, cumulative sting exposure, reaction latency, comorbidities and quality-of-life impairment, provide crucial context but lack sufficient predictive power when used alone. Skin prick and intradermal testing remain first-line tools due to high sensitivity, although interpretation is limited by interspecies cross-reactivity, extract variability and reduced reliability shortly after a sting. Serum IgE and component-resolved diagnostics improve species identification but are influenced by cross-reactive carbohydrate determinants and cannot reliably predict reaction severity or venom-immunotherapy outcomes. Basal and acute tryptase measurements contribute significantly to risk stratification and detection of clonal mast-cell disorders, though normal values do not exclude severe reactions. Functional assays, including basophil activation testing, histamine-release assays and emerging mast-cell activation platforms, provide dynamic confirmation of effector-cell reactivity in diagnostically challenging cases. Controlled sting challenge remains the reference method for confirming clinical reactivity or protection but is reserved for selected high-risk patients due to inherent procedural risks. Novel biomarkers such as osteopontin, KIT mutations, PGD
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.