ArticleAllergy2026
The REMA Score Revisited: An Optimized Algorithm for Early Prediction of Clonal Mast Cell Disease.
Article 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
16 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe Spanish Network on Mastocytosis (REMA) score was developed to predict clonal mast cell (MC) activation disorders (MCAD) in patients presenting with anaphylaxis without mastocytosis in the skin (MIS) and guide selection of patients for bone marrow (BM) examination. This study reassessed the diagnostic accuracy of the REMA score after 15 years of use and proposes refinements to optimize its predictive value.
methodsOverall, 1204 patients with severe MC mediator-related symptoms without MIS referred to the REMA were retrospectively analyzed. All underwent clinical and allergologic evaluation, serum tryptase, BM histology, immunophenotyping, and KIT mutational analysis. REMA scores were calculated and diagnostic accuracy assessed across the score ranges. Multivariable analysis was applied to identify independent predictors and refine prediction.
resultsClonal MCAD was diagnosed in 64% of patients who underwent a BM study. Overall, the REMA score showed excellent sensitivity (87%-90%) but limited specificity (34%-35%), with the poorest accuracy in the score 0-2 range. In this subgroup, independent predictors were elevated tryptase without hereditary alpha tryptasemia (OR 5.42, 95% CI 2.86-10.28) and insect venom as trigger (OR 2.18, 95% CI 1.28-3.72). KIT p.D816V in blood, although detected in only 29% of all clonal MCAD cases, allowed identification of additional low-score patients requiring BM evaluation. A refined algorithm combining these predictors improved specificity to 57% while maintaining sensitivity at 86%.
conclusionsThe REMA score remains highly sensitive for early detection of clonal MCAD presenting without MIS. Incorporation of additional clinical and molecular predictors into an updated diagnostic algorithm enhances specificity and ensures more accurate selection of patients with a REMA score of 0-2 for subsequent BM 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.