ArticleFrontiers in allergy2026
Real-world retrospective study on allergy screening and its effect on specialist referral patterns.
Article 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction and Objectives: Accurate diagnosis of IgE-mediated diseases requires identifying relevant allergens to guide appropriate clinical management and reduce healthcare costs (1). The ImmunoCAP Phadiatop (Thermo Fisher Scientific) is an Materials and Methods: A real-world retrospective observational study was conducted in a tertiary hospital allergy department (June 2021-June 2023). Data were collected using the Modulab Laboratory Information System (Werfen, Spain) and stored in a dissociated database. The Ethics Committee of Salamanca approved the study protocol. Phadiatop values above 0.35 PAU/l were considered positive. In case of repeated samples, the first was selected. Variables analyzed included test results, patient demographics, requesting departments, and allergy referrals, a well-balanced mixture of common inhalant allergens with regional adaptation. The allergen groups included were comprise: house dust mites, (e.g., Dermatophagoides pteronyssinus, D. farinae), pollens, from grasses (e.g., timothy, ryegrass), trees (e.g., birch, olive), and weeds (e.g., mugwort, plantain, ragweed), molds (e.g., Alternaria, Cladosporium, Aspergillus, Penicillium), and animal dander (e.g., cat, dog). Results: The study included 596 patients (median age 46, 64.1% female). Of these, 12.6% were under 18 years old. Most patients (95.8%) were referred from primary care, with 83.1% of them from urban areas. A total of 37.9% of patients had a positive result (median IgE 7.81 PAU/l). Most positive patients resided in urban areas (82.3%), were aged <18 years of age ( Conclusions: Phadiatop was mainly utilized in primary care. One-third of patients tested positive; of those, only one-third were referred to allergists, with higher Phadiatop values increasing associated with higher referral rates. Positivity was higher in males and younger people.
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.