The DOI matches its Crossref record.
The predictive value of the skin prick test weal size for the outcome of oral food challenges
Abstract
Summary: Background The skin prick test (SPT) is regarded as an important diagnostic measure in the diagnostic work‐up of food allergy. Objective To evaluate the diagnostic capacity of the SPT in predicting the outcome of oral food challenges, and to determine decision points for the weal size and the skin index (SI) that could render double‐blind, placebo‐controlled food challenges unnecessary. Methods In 385 children (median age 22 months), 735 controlled oral challenges were performed with cow's milk (CM), hen's egg (HE), wheat and soy. Three hundred and thirty‐six of 385 (87%) children suffered from atopic dermatitis. SPT was performed in all children. Diagnostic capacity, receiver–operator characteristics (ROC) curves and predictive decision points were calculated for the mean weal size and the calculated SI. Results Three hundred and twelve of 735 (43%) oral food challenges were assessed to be positive. Calculation of 95% and 99% predicted probabilities using logistic regression revealed predictive decision points of 13.0 and 17.8 mm for HE, and 12.5 and 17.3 mm for CM, respectively. However, using the SI, the corresponding cut‐off levels were 2.6 and 3.7, respectively, for HE, and 2.7 and 3.7 for CM. For wheat, 95% and 99% decision points of 2.2 and 3.0 were found in children below 1 year of age. Conclusion Predictive decision points for a positive outcome of food challenges can be calculated for HE and CM using weal size and SI. They may help to avoid oral food challenges.
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
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.
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
Cited by
Boyce, J. A., Assa'ad, A., Burks, A. W., Jones, S. M., Sampson, H. A., Wood, R. A., Plaut, M., Cooper, S. F., Fenton, M. J., Arshad, S. H., et al. (2010) · Journal of Allergy and Clinical Immunology · doi:10.1016/j.jaci.2010.10.008 · Cited by 2,350
Food allergy: A practice parameter update—2014
Sampson, H. A., Aceves, S., Bock, S. A., James, J., Jones, S., Lang, D., Nadeau, K., Nowak-Wegrzyn, A., Oppenheimer, J., Perry, T. T., et al. (2014) · Journal of Allergy and Clinical Immunology · doi:10.1016/j.jaci.2014.05.013 · Cited by 845
Allergy Diagnostic Testing: An Updated Practice Parameter
Bernstein, I. L., Li, J. T., Bernstein, D. I., Hamilton, R., Spector, S. L., Tan, R., Sicherer, S., Golden, D. B. K., Khan, D. A., Nicklas, R. A., et al. (2008) · Annals of Allergy, Asthma & Immunology · doi:10.1016/s1081-1206(10)60305-5 · Cited by 723
The Skin Prick Test—European Standards
Heinzerling, L., Mari, A., Bergmann, K., Bresciani, M., Burbach, G., Darsow, U., Durham, S., Fokkens, W., Gjomarkaj, M., Haahtela, T., et al. (2013) · Clinical and Translational Allergy · doi:10.1186/2045-7022-3-3 · Cited by 681
Review article: the diagnosis and management of food allergy and food intolerances
Turnbull, J. L., Adams, H. N., & Gorard, D. A. (2015) · Alimentary Pharmacology & Therapeutics · doi:10.1111/apt.12984 · Cited by 306
Metadata
- Authors
- Verstege, A., Mehl, A., Rolinck‐Werninghaus, C., Staden, U., Nocon, M., Beyer, K., & Niggemann, B.
- Venue
- Clinical & Experimental Allergy
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2005-09
- Volume
- 35
- Issue
- 9
- Pages
- 1220-1226
- ISSN
- 0954-7894 (ISSN-L)
- 1365-2222
- OpenAlex
- W2018526960
- Cited by
- 236
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 9.95
- 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 predictive value of the skin prick test weal size for the outcome of oral food challenges. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1111/j.1365-2222.2005.2324.x
- The paper
- Verstege, A., Mehl, A., Rolinck‐Werninghaus, C., Staden, U., Nocon, M., Beyer, K., & Niggemann, B. (2005). The predictive value of the skin prick test weal size for the outcome of oral food challenges. Clinical & Experimental Allergy. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2222.2005.2324.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.