4.1 Article

Diagnostic validity of specific immunoglobulin E levels to alpha-gal in alpha-gal syndrome: a cross-sectional analysis

期刊

出版社

BMC
DOI: 10.1186/s13223-023-00856-6

关键词

Diagnostic validity; Specific immunoglobulin E; Alpha-gal syndrome; Food allergy

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study evaluated the diagnostic validity of sIgE levels to alpha-gal >= 0.1 kUA/L for identifying AGS. The results suggest that sIgE levels >= 0.1 kUA/L may be a useful tool for the diagnosis of AGS, although other factors and diagnostic techniques should also be considered.
BackgroundThe diagnosis of Alpha-gal Syndrome (AGS) is based on the presence of symptoms after being exposed to potential sources of alpha-gal together with values of specific IgE (sIgE) to alpha-gal >= 0.1 kUA/L or >= 0.35 kUA/L. The aim of this study was to evaluate the diagnostic validity of sIgE levels to alpha-gal >= 0.1 kUA/L for identifying AGS.MethodsThis was a cross-sectional analysis of adult patients with available data on sIgE levels to alpha-gal, classified into two groups according to the presence (Group 1) or absence (Group 2) of symptoms after being exposed to potential sources of alpha-gal. Values of sIgE to alpha-gal >= 0.1 kUA/l were considered a positive result. A descriptive analysis of internal and external validity parameters was performed in the entire population and adjusted by sex.ResultsThe study included 33 individuals in Group 1 and 65 in Group 2, with a mean age of around 47 years. The analysis of internal validity parameters revealed a high sensitivity, specificity, and positive probability ratio, with higher sensitivity in men and higher specificity in women. The analysis of external validity parameters showed a high negative predictive value and global value in all populations and both sexes. However, the positive predictive value was relatively high in men, but low in women.ConclusionsOur results suggest that sIgE levels >= 0.1 kUA/L may be a useful tool for the diagnosis of AGS, although other factors and diagnostic techniques should also be considered.

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

4.1
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