ArticleCureus2026
Nasal Versus Conjunctival Allergen Provocation Tests: Diagnostic Performance and Clinical Utility in Respiratory Allergy.
Article in Cureus, 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundRespiratory allergic diseases are highly prevalent and often underdiagnosed, requiring diagnostic approaches that reflect clinically relevant allergic responses. Conventional methods, including skin prick tests (SPTs), serum-specific immunoglobulin E (sIgE), and component-resolved diagnostics (CRD), primarily assess sensitization and may not consistently correlate with clinical reactivity.
methodsEighty participants (50 patients with respiratory allergy and 30 controls) underwent SPTs, sIgE, CRD, nasal allergen provocation testing (NAPT), and conjunctival allergen provocation testing (CAPT). Diagnostic indices were calculated. Multivariable logistic regression identified predictors of positive provocation tests. Model performance was assessed using receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves with bootstrap-derived confidence intervals, calibration analysis (locally weighted scatterplot smoothing), and decision curve analysis (DCA).
resultsCAPT demonstrated higher sensitivity than NAPT across all reference standards (91.3-94.9% vs 75.0-86.1%). In contrast, NAPT showed superior discriminative performance, diagnostic accuracy, and model calibration. Polysensitization and asthma were the strongest predictors of positive NAPT responses. ROC analysis showed good discrimination, particularly for
conclusionsCAPT demonstrates high sensitivity, whereas NAPT provides greater clinical discrimination and decision-making value, particularly in complex allergic phenotypes. NAPT may offer clinically actionable information in patients with discordant or polysensitized profiles, supporting allergen selection and optimization of immunotherapy strategies.
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.