ArticleThe journal of allergy and clinical immunology. Global2026
Evaluation of the clinical utility of medical tests in chronic urticaria.
Article in The journal of allergy and clinical immunology. Global, 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
Background: Medical tests are procedures used to detect, diagnose, and monitor diseases or to predict outcomes related with health. Little has been explored regarding their clinical utility in urticaria. Objectives: This study sought to evaluate the clinical utility of medical tests commonly used in chronic urticaria, according with their operational accuracy, by assessing their impact on patient outcomes and clinical decision-making. Methods: The study was conducted in 3 phases. First, medical tests used in chronic urticaria were identified through a structured literature review and consultation with international urticaria specialists. Second, the operational accuracy was evaluated according with the STARD (Standards for Reporting of Diagnostic Accuracy) initiative. Third, for tests demonstrating acceptable operational performance, clinical utility was assessed based on their impact on management decisions and patient outcomes. Results: Sixteen medical tests were evaluated. For diagnostic purposes, clinical documentation through photographs and inducible challenge tests reduced misdiagnosis rates. IgE sensitization evaluation could be useful to avoid unnecessary restrictions. Acute phase reactants, serum autologous tests, IgG anti-thyroid peroxidase, and total IgE showed moderate accuracy in identifying autoimmune endotype and IgE anti-thyroid peroxidase had the highest operational performance. Several commonly ordered tests showed limited accuracy and no demonstrable clinical utility for clinical outcomes. Conclusions: Despite significant progress in understanding the pathogenesis of urticaria, which has led to new therapeutic alternatives, the development and validation of clinically useful diagnostic tools remain limited. Many routinely requested tests provide minimal added value for clinical decision-making. Future research should prioritize the development and validation of tools that meaningfully improve medical and patient-centered outcomes.
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.