ArticleBMJ open2026
Diagnostic accuracy of the passive mast cell activation test in neuromuscular blocking agent-induced perioperative anaphylaxis in a tertiary hospital in China: a diagnostic accuracy study.
Article in BMJ open, 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesThe passive mast cell activation test (pMAT) is a novel in vitro assay designed to complement existing tools like the skin test (ST) and basophil activation test (BAT) for allergen identification. This study aimed to validate the diagnostic accuracy of pMAT specifically for neuromuscular blocking agent (NMBA)-induced perioperative anaphylaxis (POA).
designA diagnostic accuracy study.
settingA tertiary hospital in Beijing, China.
participants44 patients with suspected POA were enrolled. Participants were stratified into groups based on ST and/or BAT. The NMBA-allergic group comprised 15 patients with confirmed NMBA allergy while the non-NMBA-allergic group consisted of 29 individuals without NMBA allergy.
interventionsAll participants underwent pMAT testing for relevant NMBA. PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES: The diagnostic performance of pMAT for NMBA was assessed by measuring sensitivity, specificity, likelihood ratios and the Youden index. An exploratory analysis evaluated its performance in diagnosing antibiotic-induced allergies within the same population.
resultsFor NMBA allergy, pMAT demonstrated high diagnostic accuracy (90.9%; 95% CI 77.4% to 97.1%) with excellent sensitivity (93.3%; 95% CI 66.0% to 99.7%) and specificity (89.7%; 95% CI 71.5% to 97.3%). This was reflected in a high positive likelihood ratio (9.05; 95% CI 3.06 to 26.57), a low negative likelihood ratio (0.07; 95% CI 0.01 to 0.50), a Youden index of 0.83 and a Cohen's kappa of 0.804 (indicating substantial agreement with the reference standard). In contrast, pMAT showed reduced performance for antibiotic allergy, with an accuracy of 79.5% (95% CI 64.3% to 89.7%), sensitivity of 66.7% (95% CI 30.9% to 91.0%), specificity of 82.9% (95% CI 65.7% to 92.8%) and a kappa of 0.378 (fair agreement).
conclusionspMAT demonstrated high diagnostic accuracy for NMBA allergy, filling critical gaps in current POA diagnostic workflow. Its robust performance supports its clinical utility as a complementary tool alongside ST and BAT. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ChiCTR2400084268.
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.