Table 1.
Food | Author year | N | Cut-offs | Sensitivity | Specificity |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Peanut | Santos 2014 [15] | N = 104 | ≥4.78 % CD63+ | 97.6 % | 96.0 % |
Validation population N = 65 | 83.3 % | 100 % | |||
Glaumann 2012 [12] | N = 38 | ND | 92 % | 77 % | |
Javaloyes 2012 [16] | N = 26 | ND | 92 % | 95 % | |
Ocmant 2009 [17] | N = 75 | ≥9.1 % CD63+ | 87 % | 94 % | |
Hazelnut | Brandström 2015 [28] | N = 40 | CD-sens > 1.7 | 100 % | 97 % |
Egg | Ocmant 2009 [17] | N = 67 | ≥5 % CD63+ | 77 % | 100 % |
Cow’s milk | Sato 2010 [19] | N = 50 | SI CD203c ≥ 1.9 | 89 % | 83 % |
Wheat | Tokuda 2009 [22] | N = 58 | ≥14.4 % CD203c+ | 85 % | 77 % |
Apple (PFS) | Ebo 2005 [34] | N = 61 | Vs sensit. ≥17 % CD63+ Vs NA ≥10 % |
Vs sensit. = 88 % Vs NA = 100 % |
Vs sensit. = 75 % Vs NA = 100 % |
Hazelnut (PFS) | Erdmann 2003 [33] | N = 30 | ≥6.7 % CD63+ | 85 % | 80 % |
Celery (PFS) | ≥6.3 % CD63+ | 85 % | 80 % | ||
Carrot (PFS) | ≥8.9 % CD63+ | 85 % | 85 % |
N number of study participants, PFS pollen-food syndrome, ND not determined, Vs versus, Sensit. sensitised but tolerant, NA non-sensitised non-allergic, SI stimulation index