Severina Terlouw, Frank E. van Boven, Monika Borsboom-van Zonneveld, Tineke de Graaf-in ’t Veld, Roy Gerth van Wijk, Paul L. A. van Daele, Maurits S. van Maaren, Jac H. S. A. M. Kuijpers, Sharon Veenbergen, Nicolette W. de Jong
{"title":"皮肤点刺试验与水果蔬菜点刺试验在诊断食物过敏方面的比较。","authors":"Severina Terlouw, Frank E. van Boven, Monika Borsboom-van Zonneveld, Tineke de Graaf-in ’t Veld, Roy Gerth van Wijk, Paul L. A. van Daele, Maurits S. van Maaren, Jac H. S. A. M. Kuijpers, Sharon Veenbergen, Nicolette W. de Jong","doi":"10.1002/clt2.12375","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div>\n \n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Introduction</h3>\n \n <p>Prick-to-prick (PTP) test with fresh food is accepted as a reliable tool for measuring sensitization to fruits and vegetables. Not all fruits and vegetables are available throughout the year. The objective of this study was to investigate whether skin prick test (SPT) performed with frozen juice of fruits and vegetables (FJFV) is a good alternative to PTP tests performed with fresh fruits and vegetables (FFV).</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Methods</h3>\n \n <p>Adult patients suspected of having a food allergy to fruits and/or vegetables were included. A questionnaire was used to score symptoms after consumption of apple, kiwi, peach, tomato, and carrot. SPTs with FJFV, and PTP tests with FFV were performed. Intra-class correlation coefficients (ICC) between the SPT and PTP test results were calculated. The sensitivity and specificity of both diagnostic tests towards food allergen specific symptoms (FASS) were calculated.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Results</h3>\n \n <p>Thirty-six patients were included. FASS was positive in 75% for apple, 53% for kiwi, 44% for peach, 25% for tomato, and 22% for carrot. ICC between SPT and PTP test results were moderate for apple (0.72) and kiwi (0.71), strong for peach (0.75) and tomato (0.89), and very strong for carrot (0.94). Sensitivity was equal for the SPT and PTP tests for apple (0.93), peach (0.81), and carrot (1.00), and comparable for kiwi (0.50 resp. 0.70), and tomato (0.44 resp. 0.56). Specificity was equal for apple (0.33), peach (0.15), and carrot (0.41), and comparable for kiwi (0.29 resp. 0.21) and tomato (0.80 resp. 0.72).</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Conclusions</h3>\n \n <p>Results of SPT with FJFV and PTP test with FFV are comparable. SPT with FJFV is a good alternative in the daily practice of the allergists.</p>\n </section>\n </div>","PeriodicalId":10334,"journal":{"name":"Clinical and Translational Allergy","volume":"14 7","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":4.6000,"publicationDate":"2024-07-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11226404/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Comparison of skin prick test and prick-to-prick test with fruits and vegetables in the diagnosis of food allergy\",\"authors\":\"Severina Terlouw, Frank E. van Boven, Monika Borsboom-van Zonneveld, Tineke de Graaf-in ’t Veld, Roy Gerth van Wijk, Paul L. A. van Daele, Maurits S. van Maaren, Jac H. S. A. M. Kuijpers, Sharon Veenbergen, Nicolette W. de Jong\",\"doi\":\"10.1002/clt2.12375\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div>\\n \\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Introduction</h3>\\n \\n <p>Prick-to-prick (PTP) test with fresh food is accepted as a reliable tool for measuring sensitization to fruits and vegetables. Not all fruits and vegetables are available throughout the year. The objective of this study was to investigate whether skin prick test (SPT) performed with frozen juice of fruits and vegetables (FJFV) is a good alternative to PTP tests performed with fresh fruits and vegetables (FFV).</p>\\n </section>\\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Methods</h3>\\n \\n <p>Adult patients suspected of having a food allergy to fruits and/or vegetables were included. A questionnaire was used to score symptoms after consumption of apple, kiwi, peach, tomato, and carrot. SPTs with FJFV, and PTP tests with FFV were performed. Intra-class correlation coefficients (ICC) between the SPT and PTP test results were calculated. The sensitivity and specificity of both diagnostic tests towards food allergen specific symptoms (FASS) were calculated.</p>\\n </section>\\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Results</h3>\\n \\n <p>Thirty-six patients were included. FASS was positive in 75% for apple, 53% for kiwi, 44% for peach, 25% for tomato, and 22% for carrot. ICC between SPT and PTP test results were moderate for apple (0.72) and kiwi (0.71), strong for peach (0.75) and tomato (0.89), and very strong for carrot (0.94). Sensitivity was equal for the SPT and PTP tests for apple (0.93), peach (0.81), and carrot (1.00), and comparable for kiwi (0.50 resp. 0.70), and tomato (0.44 resp. 0.56). Specificity was equal for apple (0.33), peach (0.15), and carrot (0.41), and comparable for kiwi (0.29 resp. 0.21) and tomato (0.80 resp. 0.72).</p>\\n </section>\\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Conclusions</h3>\\n \\n <p>Results of SPT with FJFV and PTP test with FFV are comparable. SPT with FJFV is a good alternative in the daily practice of the allergists.</p>\\n </section>\\n </div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":10334,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Clinical and Translational Allergy\",\"volume\":\"14 7\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":4.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-07-05\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11226404/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Clinical and Translational Allergy\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/clt2.12375\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"ALLERGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Clinical and Translational Allergy","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/clt2.12375","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ALLERGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
Comparison of skin prick test and prick-to-prick test with fruits and vegetables in the diagnosis of food allergy
Introduction
Prick-to-prick (PTP) test with fresh food is accepted as a reliable tool for measuring sensitization to fruits and vegetables. Not all fruits and vegetables are available throughout the year. The objective of this study was to investigate whether skin prick test (SPT) performed with frozen juice of fruits and vegetables (FJFV) is a good alternative to PTP tests performed with fresh fruits and vegetables (FFV).
Methods
Adult patients suspected of having a food allergy to fruits and/or vegetables were included. A questionnaire was used to score symptoms after consumption of apple, kiwi, peach, tomato, and carrot. SPTs with FJFV, and PTP tests with FFV were performed. Intra-class correlation coefficients (ICC) between the SPT and PTP test results were calculated. The sensitivity and specificity of both diagnostic tests towards food allergen specific symptoms (FASS) were calculated.
Results
Thirty-six patients were included. FASS was positive in 75% for apple, 53% for kiwi, 44% for peach, 25% for tomato, and 22% for carrot. ICC between SPT and PTP test results were moderate for apple (0.72) and kiwi (0.71), strong for peach (0.75) and tomato (0.89), and very strong for carrot (0.94). Sensitivity was equal for the SPT and PTP tests for apple (0.93), peach (0.81), and carrot (1.00), and comparable for kiwi (0.50 resp. 0.70), and tomato (0.44 resp. 0.56). Specificity was equal for apple (0.33), peach (0.15), and carrot (0.41), and comparable for kiwi (0.29 resp. 0.21) and tomato (0.80 resp. 0.72).
Conclusions
Results of SPT with FJFV and PTP test with FFV are comparable. SPT with FJFV is a good alternative in the daily practice of the allergists.
期刊介绍：
Clinical and Translational Allergy, one of several journals in the portfolio of the European Academy of Allergy and Clinical Immunology, provides a platform for the dissemination of allergy research and reviews, as well as EAACI position papers, task force reports and guidelines, amongst an international scientific audience.
Clinical and Translational Allergy accepts clinical and translational research in the following areas and other related topics: asthma, rhinitis, rhinosinusitis, drug hypersensitivity, allergic conjunctivitis, allergic skin diseases, atopic eczema, urticaria, angioedema, venom hypersensitivity, anaphylaxis, food allergy, immunotherapy, immune modulators and biologics, animal models of allergic disease, immune mechanisms, or any other topic related to allergic disease.
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
分享
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：
扫码关注我们
