Table 14. Overview of the suitability of prick test materials [271]c.
Commercial extract | Suitable for native test a | Limited suitability for native test b | |
---|---|---|---|
Food of animal origin | |||
Fish | + | + | |
Meat | (+) | + | |
Chicken egg | + | + | |
Seafood and snails | + | + | |
Milk | + | + | |
Food of vegetable origin | |||
Pineapple | + | ||
Apple | + | ||
Cereals | (+) | + | |
Strawberries | + | ||
Peanuts | + | + | |
Spices | + | ||
Hazelnuts | + | + | |
Carrot | + | ||
Kiwi | + | ||
Lychee | + | ||
Mango | + | ||
Oilseeds (e.g., poppy, sesame) | + | ||
Peach | + | ||
Celery | (+) | + | |
Mustard | + | ||
Soy | (+) | + | |
Tomato | + | ||
Grape | + | ||
Sugar snap pea | + |
aIdeally control subjects should be tested because of possible irritant components (testing of control subjects with not approved test preparations is not legal in Germany according to AMG). bHigher irritant potential. cData on the quality of commercial extracts are only available for individual food prick test solutions from individual manufacturers [271], therefore this table can only provide limited information. It does not allow extrapolation to the performance of test allergens of the same allergen sources from other manufacturers.