Literature DB >> 20460624

Diagnosing and managing common food allergies: a systematic review.

Jennifer J Schneider Chafen1, Sydne J Newberry, Marc A Riedl, Dena M Bravata, Margaret Maglione, Marika J Suttorp, Vandana Sundaram, Neil M Paige, Ali Towfigh, Benjamin J Hulley, Paul G Shekelle.   

Abstract

CONTEXT: There is heightened interest in food allergies but no clear consensus exists regarding the prevalence or most effective diagnostic and management approaches to food allergies.
OBJECTIVE: To perform a systematic review of the available evidence on the prevalence, diagnosis, management, and prevention of food allergies. DATA SOURCES: Electronic searches of PubMed, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Cochrane Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials. Searches were limited to English-language articles indexed between January 1988 and September 2009. STUDY SELECTION: Diagnostic tests were included if they had a prospective, defined study population, used food challenge as a criterion standard, and reported sufficient data to calculate sensitivity and specificity. Systematic reviews and randomized controlled trials (RCTs) for management and prevention outcomes were also used. For foods where anaphylaxis is common, cohort studies with a sample size of more than 100 participants were included. DATA EXTRACTION: Two investigators independently reviewed all titles and abstracts to identify potentially relevant articles and resolved discrepancies by repeated review and discussion. Quality of systematic reviews and meta-analyses was assessed using the AMSTAR criteria, the quality of diagnostic studies using the QUADAS criteria most relevant to food allergy, and the quality of RCTs using the Jadad criteria. DATA SYNTHESIS: A total of 12,378 citations were identified and 72 citations were included. Food allergy affects more than 1% to 2% but less than 10% of the population. It is unclear if the prevalence of food allergies is increasing. Summary receiver operating characteristic curves comparing skin prick tests (area under the curve [AUC], 0.87; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.81-0.93) and serum food-specific IgE (AUC, 0.84; 95% CI, 0.78-0.91) to food challenge showed no statistical superiority for either test. Elimination diets are the mainstay of therapy but have been rarely studied. Immunotherapy is promising but data are insufficient to recommend use. In high-risk infants, hydrolyzed formulas may prevent cow's milk allergy but standardized definitions of high risk and hydrolyzed formula do not exist.
CONCLUSION: The evidence for the prevalence and management of food allergy is greatly limited by a lack of uniformity for criteria for making a diagnosis.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2010        PMID: 20460624     DOI: 10.1001/jama.2010.582

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  JAMA        ISSN: 0098-7484            Impact factor:   56.272


  110 in total

Review 1.  Update on food allergy in adults.

Authors:  Rabia Quddus Chaudhry; John J Oppenheimer
Journal:  Curr Allergy Asthma Rep       Date:  2012-08       Impact factor: 4.806

Review 2.  Diagnosis of food allergy: epicutaneous skin tests, in vitro tests, and oral food challenge.

Authors:  Jay A Lieberman; Scott H Sicherer
Journal:  Curr Allergy Asthma Rep       Date:  2011-02       Impact factor: 4.806

3.  Mechanisms of immune tolerance relevant to food allergy.

Authors:  Brian P Vickery; Amy M Scurlock; Stacie M Jones; A Wesley Burks
Journal:  J Allergy Clin Immunol       Date:  2011-01-31       Impact factor: 10.793

Review 4.  Early life precursors, epigenetics, and the development of food allergy.

Authors:  Xiumei Hong; Xiaobin Wang
Journal:  Semin Immunopathol       Date:  2012-07-10       Impact factor: 9.623

5.  Comorbidity in Atopic Dermatitis.

Authors:  Eric L Simpson
Journal:  Curr Dermatol Rep       Date:  2012-03-01

6.  Remaining symptoms in half the children treated for milk allergy.

Authors:  Nicole C M Petrus; Anne-Fleur A Schoemaker; Meike W van Hoek; Laura Jansen; Marijke C Jansen-van der Weide; Wim M C van Aalderen; Aline B Sprikkelman
Journal:  Eur J Pediatr       Date:  2014-11-22       Impact factor: 3.183

7.  A rapid method for detection adulteration in goat milk by using vibrational spectroscopy in combination with chemometric methods.

Authors:  Hülya Yaman
Journal:  J Food Sci Technol       Date:  2020-03-17       Impact factor: 2.701

8.  Food entries in a large allergy data repository.

Authors:  Joseph M Plasek; Foster R Goss; Kenneth H Lai; Jason J Lau; Diane L Seger; Kimberly G Blumenthal; Paige G Wickner; Sarah P Slight; Frank Y Chang; Maxim Topaz; David W Bates; Li Zhou
Journal:  J Am Med Inform Assoc       Date:  2015-09-17       Impact factor: 4.497

Review 9.  Current immunological and molecular biological perspectives on seafood allergy: a comprehensive review.

Authors:  Nicki Y H Leung; Christine Y Y Wai; ShangAn Shu; Jinjun Wang; Thomas P Kenny; Ka Hou Chu; Patrick S C Leung
Journal:  Clin Rev Allergy Immunol       Date:  2014-06       Impact factor: 8.667

10.  Food allergy and related risk factors in 2540 preschool children: an epidemiological survey in Guangdong Province, southern China.

Authors:  Guang-Qiao Zeng; Jia-Ying Luo; Hui-Min Huang; Pei-Yan Zheng; Wen-Ting Luo; Ni-Li Wei; Bao-Qing Sun
Journal:  World J Pediatr       Date:  2015-08-08       Impact factor: 2.764

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.