Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 236

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

The predictive value of the skin prick test weal size for the outcome of oral food challenges

Verstege, A., Mehl, A., Rolinck‐Werninghaus, C., Staden, U., Nocon, M., Beyer, K., Niggemann, B.·2005·Clinical & Experimental Allergy

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.

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

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/j.1365-2222.2005.2324.x

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.

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

Cited by

See all 236

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.