The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
BAT and MAT for diagnosis of peanut allergy: A systematic review and meta‐analysis
Abstract
Basophil activation test (BAT) or the mast cell activation test (MAT) are two in vitro tests that are currently being studied in food allergy as diagnostic tools as an alternative to oral food challenges (OFCs). We conducted a meta‐analysis on BAT and MAT, assessing their specificity and sensitivity in diagnosing peanut allergy. Six databases were searched for studies on patients suspected of having peanut allergy. Studies using BAT or MAT to peanut extract and/or component as diagnostic tools with results given in percentage of CD63 activation were included in this meta‐analysis. Study quality was evaluated with the QUADAS‐2 tool. On the 11 studies identified, eight focused exclusively on children, while three included a mixed population of adults and children. Only one study provided data on MAT, precluding us from conducting a statistical analysis. The diagnostic accuracy of BAT was higher when stimulated with peanut extract rather than Ara h 2 with a pooled specificity of 96% (95% CI: 0.89–0.98) and sensitivity of 0.86 (95% CI: 0.74–0.93). The sensitivity and specificity of BATs in discriminating between allergic and sensitized patients were studied as well, with pooled analysis revealing a sensitivity of 0.86 (95% CI: 0.74; 0.93) and a specificity of 0.97 (95% CI: 0.94, 0.98). BATs, when stimulated with peanut extracts, exhibit a satisfactory sensitivity and specificity for the diagnosis of peanut allergy and can help to discriminate between allergic individuals and those only sensitized to peanuts. More investigations on the potential for MATs diagnostic methods are warranted.
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.
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
In the citing paper
“However, challenges include difficulty in isolating mast cells, high variability of primary cells, and lower sensitivity than BAT, making MAT particularly useful only as a secondary diagnostic option for basophil non-responders [197,217,219,220].”
From Pollen–Food Allergy Syndrome: Allergens, Clinical Insights, Diagnostic and Therapeutic Challenges (2024) · cites this paper as [220]
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
QUADAS-2: a revised tool for the quality assessment of diagnostic accuracy studies
Whiting, P. F., Rutjes, A. W. S., Westwood, M. E., Mallett, S., Deeks, J. J., Reitsma, J. B., Leeflang, M. M. G., Sterne, J. A. C., Bossuyt, P. M. M., & the QUADAS-2 Group* (2011) · Annals of Internal Medicine · doi:10.7326/0003-4819-155-8-201110180-00009 · Cited by 14,199
Research works printed but not linked: 25
- Cannon HE, 2018, The economic impact of peanut allergies, Am J Manag Care, 24, S428
- 10.1016/j.jaci.2018.01.043 · DOI
- 10.1016/j.jaci.2014.07.040 · DOI
- 10.3389/fimmu.2020.01815 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1007/978-1-0716-0696-4_19 · DOI
- 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2007.03.016 · DOI
- 10.1002/sim.6115 · DOI
- Javaloyes G, 2012, Performance of different in vitro techniques in the molecular diagnosis of peanut allergy, J Invest Allergol Clin Immunol, 22, 508
- 10.1016/j.jaci.2014.04.039 · DOI
- 10.1111/all.13243 · DOI
- 10.1016/j.jaci.2018.03.011 · DOI
- 10.1016/j.jaci.2020.03.035 · DOI
- 10.1016/j.jaip.2020.12.039 · DOI
- 10.1111/all.12421 · DOI
- 10.1016/j.jaip.2020.09.043 · DOI
- 10.1016/j.jaci.2016.06.041 · DOI
- 10.1016/j.jaip.2021.09.009 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1111/all.12939 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1016/j.jaip.2018.11.010 · DOI
- 10.1111/pai.12845 · DOI
- 10.1111/all.15757 · DOI
- 10.1111/all.15939 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1002/bimj.200410135 · DOI
- 10.1111/pai.13870 · DOI
- 10.1016/j.jaci.2014.09.001 · DOI
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Pollen–Food Allergy Syndrome: Allergens, Clinical Insights, Diagnostic and Therapeutic Challenges
Haidar, L., Bănărescu, C. F., Uța, C., Moldovan, S. I., Zimbru, E.-L., Zimbru, R.-I., Ciurariu, E., Georgescu, M., & Panaitescu, C. (2024) · Applied Sciences · doi:10.3390/app15010066 · Cited by 21
Metadata
- Authors
- Piletta‐Zanin, A., Ricci, C., Santos, A. F., & Eigenmann, P. A.
- Affiliations
- Pediatric Allergy Unit, Department of Woman, Child and Adolescent University Hospitals of Geneva (HUG) Geneva Switzerland
- Africa Unit for Transdisciplinary Health Research (AUTHeR) North‐West University Potchefstroom South Africa
- Department of Women and Children's Health (Pediatric Allergy), School of Life Course Sciences, Faculty of Life Sciences and Medicine King's College London London UK
- Venue
- Pediatric Allergy and Immunology
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2024-06
- Volume
- 35
- Issue
- 6
- ISSN
- 0905-6157
- 1399-3038
- Cited by
- 11
- References
- 1
- Language
- en
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: BAT and MAT for diagnosis of peanut allergy: A systematic review and meta‐analysis. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1111/pai.14140
- The paper
- Piletta‐Zanin, A., Ricci, C., Santos, A. F., & Eigenmann, P. A. (2024). BAT and MAT for diagnosis of peanut allergy: A systematic review and meta‐analysis. Pediatric Allergy and Immunology. https://doi.org/10.1111/pai.14140