CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 9

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

Comparison of Skin Prick Test and Prick-to-Prick Test with Fruits and Vegetables in the Diagnosis of Food Allergy

Terlouw, Severina, van Boven, Frank E., Borsboom‐van Zonneveld, Monika, de Graaf‐in ’t Veld, Tineke, Gerth van Wijk, Roy, van Daele, Paul L. A., van Maaren, Maurits S., Kuijpers, Jac H. S. A. M., Veenbergen, Sharon, de Jong, Nicolette W.·2024·Clinical and Translational Allergy
DOI 10.1002/clt2.12375PMC PMC11226404
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

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.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1002/clt2.12375

Cites

Statistics

Figures

FIGURE 1 SPT‐PTP test HEP results of the five foods allergens.
FIGURE 1 SPT‐PTP test HEP results of the five foods allergens.CC BY · PubMed Central
FIGURE 2 Accuracy of SPT‐PTP test HEP results in relation to FASS (proportion of agreement) and CI of the 5 food allergens. PTP, prick‐to‐prick; SPT, skin prick test.
FIGURE 2 Accuracy of SPT‐PTP test HEP results in relation to FASS (proportion of agreement) and CI of the 5 food allergens. PTP, prick‐to‐prick; SPT, skin prick test.CC BY · PubMed Central

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

No references could be resolved yet.

Research works printed but not linked: 20

  1. Garriga T, 2010, Frozen fruit skin prick test for the diagnosis of fruit allergy, Asian Pac J Allergy Immunol, 28, 275
  2. 10.1002/mnfr.200600132 · DOI
  3. Hassan AK, 2015, An overview of fruit allergy and the causative allergens, Eur Ann Allergy Clin Immunol, 47, 180
  4. 10.1111/ddg.12731 · DOI
  5. 10.2174/1573396314666180423105842 · DOI
  6. 10.1186/s13601‐015‐0050‐2 · DOI
  7. 10.1186/2045‐7022‐3‐3 · DOI · Paper page
  8. 10.1111/all.14329 · DOI
  9. 10.1111/all.15902 · DOI · Paper page
  10. 10.1111/j.1398‐9995.1997.tb02427.x · DOI
  11. 10.1016/j.iac.2017.09.004 · DOI
  12. JongNWd.Reproducubility and Stability of 'in House Manufactured' Extracts Used in the Diagnosis of IgE Mediated Allergy;2004:45‐53. ISBN 90‐77595‐73‐2.
  13. 10.1067/mai.2000.106927 · DOI
  14. 10.1186/s13601‐016‐0092‐0 · DOI
  15. 10.3390/nu13041355 · DOI
  16. 10.3390/nu14030475 · DOI
  17. 10.1111/all.12201 · DOI
  18. Zivanovic M, 2017, Evaluation of food allergy in children by skin prick tests with commercial extracts and fresh foods, specific IgE and, open oral food challenge‐our five years experience in food allergy work‐up, Iran J Allergy, Asthma Immunol, 16, 127
  19. 10.1016/j.jaci.2012.10.017 · DOI
  20. 10.1111/all.12429 · DOI · Paper page

Cited by

Sorted by citations

See all 9

Metadata

Authors
Terlouw, S., van Boven, F. E., Borsboom‐van Zonneveld, M., de Graaf‐in ’t Veld, T., Gerth van Wijk, R., van Daele, P. L. A., van Maaren, M. S., Kuijpers, J. H. S. A. M., Veenbergen, S., & de Jong, N. W.
Affiliations
  • Department of Allergology Albert Schweitzer Hospital Zwijndrecht The Netherlands
  • Internal Medicine Allergology & Clinical Immunology Erasmus MC University Medical Center Rotterdam Rotterdam The Netherlands
  • Department of Immunology Laboratory Medical Immunology Erasmus MC University Medical Center Rotterdam Rotterdam The Netherlands
ORCID
Venue
Clinical and Translational Allergy
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2024-07
Volume
14
Issue
7
ISSN
2045-7022
DOI
10.1002/clt2.12375
PMC
PMC11226404
Cited by
9
References
0
Language
en
Licence
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (vor, 4 d)

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Comparison of Skin Prick Test and Prick-to-Prick Test with Fruits and Vegetables in the Diagnosis of Food Allergy. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1002/clt2.12375
The paper
Terlouw, S., van Boven, F. E., Borsboom‐van Zonneveld, M., de Graaf‐in ’t Veld, T., Gerth van Wijk, R., van Daele, P. L. A., van Maaren, M. S., Kuijpers, J. H. S. A. M., Veenbergen, S., & de Jong, N. W. (2024). Comparison of Skin Prick Test and Prick-to-Prick Test with Fruits and Vegetables in the Diagnosis of Food Allergy. Clinical and Translational Allergy. https://doi.org/10.1002/clt2.12375