Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 403

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 122 of the 122 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

The clinical utility of basophil activation testing in diagnosis and monitoring of allergic disease

Open access
Hoffmann, H. J., Santos, A. F., Mayorga, C., Nopp, A., Eberlein, B., Ferrer, M., Rouzaire, P., Ebo, D. G., Sabato, V., Sanz, M. L., Pecaric-Petkovic, T., Patil, S. U., Hausmann, O. V., Shreffler, W. G., Korosec, P., Knol, E. F.·2015·Allergy

Abstract

The basophil activation test (BAT) has become a pervasive test for allergic response through the development of flow cytometry, discovery of activation markers such as CD63 and unique markers identifying basophil granulocytes. Basophil activation test measures basophil response to allergen cross-linking IgE on between 150 and 2000 basophil granulocytes in <0.1 ml fresh blood. Dichotomous activation is assessed as the fraction of reacting basophils. In addition to clinical history, skin prick test, and specific IgE determination, BAT can be a part of the diagnostic evaluation of patients with food-, insect venom-, and drug allergy and chronic urticaria. It may be helpful in determining the clinically relevant allergen. Basophil sensitivity may be used to monitor patients on allergen immunotherapy, anti-IgE treatment or in the natural resolution of allergy. Basophil activation test may use fewer resources and be more reproducible than challenge testing. As it is less stressful for the patient and avoids severe allergic reactions, BAT ought to precede challenge testing. An important next step is to standardize BAT and make it available in diagnostic laboratories. The nature of basophil activation as an ex vivo challenge makes it a multifaceted and promising tool for the allergist. In this EAACI task force position paper, we provide an overview of the practical and technical details as well as the clinical utility of BAT in diagnosis and management of allergic diseases.

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 · 10.1111/all.12698

Cites

122 of 122 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 122 references

Cited by

See all 403

Metadata

Authors
Hoffmann, H. J., Santos, A. F., Mayorga, C., Nopp, A., Eberlein, B., Ferrer, M., Rouzaire, P., Ebo, D. G., Sabato, V., Sanz, M. L., Pecaric-Petkovic, T., Patil, S. U., Hausmann, O. V., Shreffler, W. G., Korosec, P., & Knol, E. F.
Venue
Allergy
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2015-09-08
Volume
70
Issue
11
Pages
1393-1405
ISSN
0105-4538 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W1650397053
Cited by
403
References
122
FWCI
31.62
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
bronze

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 clinical utility of basophil activation testing in diagnosis and monitoring of allergic disease. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1111/all.12698
The paper
Hoffmann, H. J., Santos, A. F., Mayorga, C., Nopp, A., Eberlein, B., Ferrer, M., Rouzaire, P., Ebo, D. G., Sabato, V., Sanz, M. L., Pecaric-Petkovic, T., Patil, S. U., Hausmann, O. V., Shreffler, W. G., Korosec, P., & Knol, E. F. (2015). The clinical utility of basophil activation testing in diagnosis and monitoring of allergic disease. Allergy. https://doi.org/10.1111/all.12698

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.