4.3 Article

Skin Prick Testing to Aeroallergen Extracts: What Is the Optimal Panel in Children and Adolescents in Turkey?

期刊

出版社

KARGER
DOI: 10.1159/000329870

关键词

Aeroallergens; Children; Sensitization; Skin prick test

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background/Objective: The skin prick test (SPT) is the standard tool for the diagnosis of IgE-mediated allergic diseases. The number and spectrum of allergen extracts to be applied for the diagnosis of sensitized patients in order to achieve the most cost-effective and informative results are critical from both economic and scientific viewpoints. Methods: In order to determine the minimum test battery panel necessary to cover at least 95% of the cases of SPT sensitization in children and adolescents (2-18 years) with suspected respiratory allergies, we retrospectively analyzed the SPT results of the largest referral center of the country. Results: Over a 2.5-year period, a total of 2,457 children (male/female ratio 1.51) with a median (range) age of 6.8 years (2.0-18.0) were subjected to SPT. Eight hundred and sixty-two (35.1%) children were found to be sensitized to at least one of the 30 aeroallergen extracts tested. The most common sensitizations were to grasses (Festuca pratensis, Phleum pratense, Dactylis glomerata, and Lolium perenne), house dust mites (Dermatophagoides pteronyssinus and Dermatophagoides farinae), cat, weeds (Chenopodium, Plantago, and Artemisia), and moulds (Alternaria and Cladosporium). The sensitization rates increased in conjunction with an increase in age. Testing with 12, 8, and 7 allergens was sufficient to identify over 95% of the sensitized preschool children, school children, and adolescents, respectively. Conclusion: An SPT panel covering 12 allergen extracts was sufficient to detect most of the sensitized children and adolescents with recurrent respiratory symptoms. As the patients grow older, a smaller test panel is required compared to the panels used at younger ages. Copyright (C) 2011 S. Karger AG, Basel

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.3
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据