Source 1review2000Allergy
Toolkit/Skin prick test
Skin prick test
Taxonomy: Technique Branch / Method. Workflows sit above the mechanism and technique branches rather than replacing them.
Summary
Since there are homologous proteins in peanut and soy, it is not uncommon to find positive tests for IgE antibody to both of these foods in individuals who are clinically reactive to one or the other.
Usefulness & Problems
Why this is useful
Skin prick testing is used in the review as a common way to detect sensitization to peanut, soy, and other legumes. It is part of the evidence base showing frequent multiple positive tests.; detecting sensitization to peanut, soy, and other legumes; screening for possible allergy
Source:
Skin prick testing is used in the review as a common way to detect sensitization to peanut, soy, and other legumes. It is part of the evidence base showing frequent multiple positive tests.
Source:
detecting sensitization to peanut, soy, and other legumes
Source:
screening for possible allergy
Problem solved
It helps identify sensitization patterns that may prompt further evaluation.; provides a practical sensitization readout in allergy evaluation
Source:
It helps identify sensitization patterns that may prompt further evaluation.
Source:
provides a practical sensitization readout in allergy evaluation
Problem links
provides a practical sensitization readout in allergy evaluation
LiteratureIt helps identify sensitization patterns that may prompt further evaluation.
Source:
It helps identify sensitization patterns that may prompt further evaluation.
Taxonomy & Function
Primary hierarchy
Technique Branch
Method: A concrete measurement method used to characterize an engineered system.
Mechanisms
cross-reactivity arising from homologous allergenic proteinsige-associated allergen sensitization detectionTechniques
Functional AssayTarget processes
No target processes tagged yet.
Implementation Constraints
cofactor dependency: cofactor requirement unknownencoding mode: genetically encodedimplementation constraint: context specific validationoperating role: sensor
requires allergen test materials and clinical interpretation
The review emphasizes that positive skin tests alone do not prove clinically important coallergy.; positive tests may not correspond to clinical reactivity; the review notes that elimination of all legumes based on positive tests is unwarranted
Validation
Cell-freeBacteriaMammalianMouseHumanTherapeuticIndep. Replication
Supporting Sources
Ranked Claims
Elimination of all legumes in individuals with clinical reactions to one legume is generally unwarranted despite frequent multiple positive legume tests.
Epitope analysis suggests that linear IgE-binding epitopes are prominent in major peanut allergens and that some single amino-acid substitutions can reduce IgE binding, implying therapeutic potential.
Molecular studies indicate that peanut and soy contain both homologous and unique allergenic proteins, helping explain why serologic cross-reactivity does not always produce clinical coallergy.
Serologic or skin-test cross-reactivity between peanut and soy is common, but clinically important peanut-soy coallergy is uncommon.
clinical soy reactivity in peanut allergic children 3%coallergy rate atopic dermatitis cohort 1 0.8%coallergy rate atopic dermatitis cohort 2 1.8%soy reactivity among severe peanut allergy cases 6.5%
Approval Evidence
1 source2 linked approval claimsfirst-pass slug skin-prick-test
Since there are homologous proteins in peanut and soy, it is not uncommon to find positive tests for IgE antibody to both of these foods in individuals who are clinically reactive to one or the other.
Source:
review summarysupports
Elimination of all legumes in individuals with clinical reactions to one legume is generally unwarranted despite frequent multiple positive legume tests.
Source:
review summarysupports
Serologic or skin-test cross-reactivity between peanut and soy is common, but clinically important peanut-soy coallergy is uncommon.
Source:
Comparisons
Source-stated alternatives
The review contrasts skin testing with oral food challenges and serologic assays such as RAST.
Source:
The review contrasts skin testing with oral food challenges and serologic assays such as RAST.
Source-backed strengths
widely referenced in the review as a common clinical test
Source:
widely referenced in the review as a common clinical test
Compared with assays
The review contrasts skin testing with oral food challenges and serologic assays such as RAST.
Shared frame: source-stated alternative in extracted literature
Strengths here: widely referenced in the review as a common clinical test.
Relative tradeoffs: positive tests may not correspond to clinical reactivity; the review notes that elimination of all legumes based on positive tests is unwarranted.
Source:
The review contrasts skin testing with oral food challenges and serologic assays such as RAST.
Compared with Oral food challenge
The review contrasts skin testing with oral food challenges and serologic assays such as RAST.
Shared frame: source-stated alternative in extracted literature
Strengths here: widely referenced in the review as a common clinical test.
Relative tradeoffs: positive tests may not correspond to clinical reactivity; the review notes that elimination of all legumes based on positive tests is unwarranted.
Source:
The review contrasts skin testing with oral food challenges and serologic assays such as RAST.
Ranked Citations
- 1.