ReviewAllergologie select2026
In vitro diagnostics in hymenoptera venom allergy: Current concepts and perspectives.
Review in Allergologie select, 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
backgroundHymenoptera venom allergy (HVA) is a leading cause of anaphylaxis in adults and requires precise diagnostic work-up to guide venom immunotherapy (VIT). However, the high prevalence of asymptomatic sensitization and frequent double sensitization complicate the identification of clinically relevant allergens. MATERIALS AND
methodsThis narrative review summarizes current concepts and recent advances in in vitro diagnostics of HVA, including conventional IgE testing, component-resolved diagnostics (CRD), IgE ratio analysis, and cellular assays and biomarkers for risk stratification. Emphasis is placed on their diagnostic performance, limitations, and clinical applicability.
resultsMeasurement of venom-specific IgE remains the cornerstone of HVA diagnosis, offering high sensitivity for clinically relevant HVA. CRD using recombinant, CCD-free allergens improves discrimination between primary sensitization and cross-reactivity, particularly in patients with double sensitization to honeybee and yellow jacket venoms. However, incomplete allergen panels, especially in honeybee venom allergy, limit sensitivity. IgE ratio analysis has emerged as a complementary tool to identify the most likely culprit venom, although it may be influenced by recent sting exposure. Cellular assays such as the basophil activation test provide functional information and may support diagnosis in complex cases but are restricted to specialized centers. In addition, biomarkers such as basal serum tryptase and KIT p.D816V mutation are important for risk stratification.
conclusionModern in vitro diagnostics substantially enhance the precision of HVA diagnosis but cannot replace clinical history. An integrated approach combining serology, molecular diagnostics, ratio analysis and, where appropriate, functional assays, is essential for accurate identification of the relevant venom and optimal patient management.
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.