Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 387

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

The lymphocyte transformation test for the diagnosis of drug allergy: sensitivity and specificity

NYFELER, B., PICHLER, W.J.·1997·Clinical <html_ent glyph="@amp;" ascii="&"/> Experimental Allergy

Abstract

BACKGROUND: The diagnosis of a drug allergy is mainly based upon a very detailed history and the clinical findings. In addition, several in vitro or in vivo tests can be performed to demonstrate a sensitization to a certain drug. One of the in vitro tests is the lymphocyte transformation test (LTT), which can reveal a sensitization of T-cells by an enhanced proliferative response of peripheral blood mononuclear cells to a certain drug. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the sensitivity and specificity of the LTT, 923 case histories of patients with suspected drug allergy in whom a LTT was performed were retrospectively analysed. METHODS: Based on the history and provocation tests, the probability (P) of a drug allergy was estimated to be > 0.9, 0.5-0.9, 0.1-0.5 or < 0.1, and was put in relation to a positive or negative LTT. RESULTS: Seventy-eight of 100 patients with a very likely drug allergy (P > 0.9) had a positive LTT, which indicates a sensitivity of 78%. If allergies to betalactam-antibiotics were analysed separately, the sensitivity was 74.4%. Fifteen of 102 patients where a classical drug allergy could be excluded (P < 0.1), had nevertheless a positive LTT (specificity thus 85%). The majority of these cases were classified as so-called pseudo-allergic reaction to NSAIDs. Patients with a clear history and clinical findings for a cotrimoxazole-related allergy, all had a positive LTT (6/6), and in patients who reacted to drugs containing proteins, sensitization could be demonstrated as well (i.e. hen's egg lysozyme, 7/7). In 632 of the 923 cases, skin tests were also performed (scratch and/or epicutaneous), for which we found a lower sensitivity than for the LTT (64%), while the specificity was the same (85%). CONCLUSION: Although our data are somewhat biased by the high number of penicillin allergies and cannot be generalized to drug allergies caused by other compounds, we conclude that the LTT is a useful diagnostic test in drug allergies, able to support the diagnosis of a drug allergy and to pinpoint the relevant drug.

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 · 10.1046/j.1365-2222.1997.d01-495.x

Cites

1 of 1 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

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

Show all 1 references

Cited by

See all 387

Metadata

Authors
NYFELER, B., & PICHLER, W. J.
Venue
Clinical <html_ent glyph="@amp;" ascii="&"/> Experimental Allergy
Publisher
Wiley
Published
1997-02
Volume
27
Issue
2
Pages
175-181
ISSN
  • 0954-7894 (ISSN-L)
  • 1365-2222
OpenAlex
W2004772981
Cited by
387
References
1
FWCI
12.73
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

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: The lymphocyte transformation test for the diagnosis of drug allergy: sensitivity and specificity. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1046/j.1365-2222.1997.d01-495.x
The paper
NYFELER, B., & PICHLER, W. J. (1997). The lymphocyte transformation test for the diagnosis of drug allergy: sensitivity and specificity. Clinical <html_ent glyph="@amp;" ascii="&"/> Experimental Allergy. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2222.1997.d01-495.x

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.