The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Geographical variation in the prevalence of positive skin tests to environmental aeroallergens in the European Community Respiratory Health Survey I
Abstract
Background: Many studies have reported the prevalence of sensitization using skin prick tests. However, comparisons between studies and between regions are difficult because the number and the type of allergens tested vary widely. Using the European Community Health Respiratory Survey I data, the geographical variation of sensitization to environmental allergen as measured by skin tests was established. Methods: Adults aged 20–44 years, living in 35 centres in 15 developed countries, underwent skin tests for allergy to nine common aeroallergens: Dermatophagoides pteronyssinus, timothy grass, cat, Cladosporium herbarium, Alternaria alternata, birch, Olea europea, common ragweed and Parietaria judaica. The age–sex standardized prevalence of sensitization was determined and centres with high (95% confidence interval above and excluding study median) and low prevalence (95% confidence interval below and excluding study median) of sensitization to each allergen and to any of the nine allergens were identified. Results: There was substantial geographical variation in the prevalence of sensitization to each of the nine allergens tested and in the prevalence of sensitization to any allergen (lowest 17.1%, median 36.8% and highest 54.8%). Sensitization to D. pteronyssinus, grass pollen and cat were usually the most prevalent (median between centre 21.7%, 16.9% and 8.8%, respectively). Timothy grass sensitization was higher than that for any other pollen species. Conclusions: As expected, geographical variations of sensitization to environmental allergen were observed across centres. These findings were compatible for those observed with serum‐specific IgE. Skin tests can be used to assess the geographical distribution of allergens in a multicentric epidemiological survey.
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
EAACI Molecular Allergology User's Guide
Matricardi, P. M., Kleine‐Tebbe, J., Hoffmann, H. J., Valenta, R., Hilger, C., Hofmaier, S., Aalberse, R. C., Agache, I., Asero, R., Ballmer‐Weber, B., et al. (2016) · Pediatric Allergy and Immunology · doi:10.1111/pai.12563 · Cited by 932
Greiner, A. N., Hellings, P. W., Rotiroti, G., & Scadding, G. K. (2011) · The Lancet · doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(11)60130-x · Cited by 895
Respiratory allergy caused by house dust mites: What do we really know?
Calderón, M. A., Linneberg, A., Kleine-Tebbe, J., De Blay, F., Hernandez Fernandez de Rojas, D., Virchow, J. C., & Demoly, P. (2015) · Journal of Allergy and Clinical Immunology · doi:10.1016/j.jaci.2014.10.012 · Cited by 553
Salo, P. M., Arbes, S. J., Jaramillo, R., Calatroni, A., Weir, C. H., Sever, M. L., Hoppin, J. A., Rose, K. M., Liu, A. H., Gergen, P. J., et al. (2014) · Journal of Allergy and Clinical Immunology · doi:10.1016/j.jaci.2013.12.1071 · Cited by 351
Akdis (2020) · doi:10.1111/pai.13189 · Cited by 320
Metadata
- Authors
- Bousquet, P. ‐., Chinn, S., Janson, C., Kogevinas, M., Burney, P., & Jarvis, D.
- Venue
- Allergy
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2007-02-08
- Volume
- 62
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 301-309
- ISSN
- 0105-4538 (ISSN-L)
- 1398-9995
- OpenAlex
- W2114294352
- Cited by
- 404
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 7.11
- 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: Geographical variation in the prevalence of positive skin tests to environmental aeroallergens in the European Community Respiratory Health Survey I. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1111/j.1398-9995.2006.01293.x
- The paper
- Bousquet, P. ‐., Chinn, S., Janson, C., Kogevinas, M., Burney, P., & Jarvis, D. (2007). Geographical variation in the prevalence of positive skin tests to environmental aeroallergens in the European Community Respiratory Health Survey I. Allergy. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1398-9995.2006.01293.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.