Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: https://cuir.car.chula.ac.th/handle/123456789/61735
Full metadata record
DC FieldValueLanguage
dc.contributor.authorJongkonnee Wongpiyabovorn-
dc.contributor.authorNarissara Suratannon-
dc.contributor.authorSadudee Boonmee-
dc.contributor.authorPantipa Chatchatee-
dc.contributor.otherChulalongkorn University. Faculty of Medicine-
dc.date.accessioned2019-05-12T12:17:25Z-
dc.date.available2019-05-12T12:17:25Z-
dc.date.issued2018-09-
dc.identifier.citationAsian Pacific Journal of Allergy and Immunology. Vol.36, Issue 3 (Sep, 2018), p. 159-165.en_US
dc.identifier.issn0125-877x-
dc.identifier.issn2228-8694-
dc.identifier.urihttp://cuir.car.chula.ac.th/handle/123456789/61735-
dc.description.abstractBackground: Diagnostic tools to identify allergens that cause allergic symptom is important part in the care of allergic patients. Detection of causative allergen can be performed by in vivo skin prick test (SPT) or in vitro tests for detection serum specific immunoglobulin E (sIgE). The common methods used are fluorescent enzyme assay and immunoblotting assay. Objective: We aim to evaluate performance of the two sIgE determination systems, immunoblotting assay (Euroline) and fluorescent enzyme assay (ImmunoCAP) in comparison with SPT. Methods: Two hundred and two participants with allergic diseases were enrolled. Sensitization to common allergens was identified using skin prick test and serum specific IgE assays with Euroline and ImmunoCAP. Both systems provide the result in the same unit and the same cut-off value (0.35 kUA/L). The specific IgE levels of 4 aeroallergens, 6 food allergens and 3 food allergen components were analyzed to evaluate the performance of both sIgE assays with SPT. Results: When compared with the result of SPT, ImmunoCAP has 63.9-93.2% agreement and Euroline has 68.4-86.2% agreement for allergen detection. Both sIgE assays have significant correlation in measuring sIgE of almost all allergens (r=0.626-0.901, p<0.001) except for dog. For food allergen components, both sIgE tests have outstanding correlation and agreement (r=0.816-0.952, p<0.001; agreement =87.0-92.9%, respectively). The receiver-operating characteristic curve analysis indicated slight discrepancy of both sIgE assays. Conclusions: Both sIgE determination systems demonstrate fair to good performance when compared to SPT depending on type of allergens. The two sIgE determination systems had favorable correlation and agreement.en_US
dc.language.isoen-
dc.publisherNLM (Medline)en_US
dc.relation.urihttp://doi.org/10.12932/AP-270217-0035-
dc.rights© 2018 Asian Pacific Journal of Allergy and Immunologyen_US
dc.titleComparison of specific IgE detection by immunoblotting and fluorescence enzyme assay with in vivo skin prick testen_US
dc.typeArticleen_US
dc.email.authorJongkonnee.W@Chula.ac.th-
dc.email.authorNarissara.Su@chula.ac.th-
dc.email.authorNo information provided-
dc.email.authorPantipa.C@Chula.ac.th-
dc.subject.keywordFluorescence enzyme assayen_US
dc.subject.keywordImmunoblotting assayen_US
dc.subject.keywordSpecific IgE assayen_US
dc.subject.keywordSkin prick testen_US
dc.subject.keywordallergenen_US
dc.identifier.DOI10.12932/AP-270217-0035-
Appears in Collections:Foreign Journal Article

Files in This Item:
File Description SizeFormat 
html_submission_64680.htmlLink to Fulltext2.67 kBHTMLView/Open


Items in DSpace are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.