BackgroundThere are several methods to read skin prick test results in type-I allergy testing. A commonly used method is to characterize the wheal size by its ‘average diameter’. A more accurate method is to scan the area of the wheal to calculate the actual size. In both methods, skin prick test (SPT) results can be corrected for histamine-sensitivity of the skin by dividing the results of the allergic reaction by the histamine control. The objectives of this study are to compare different techniques of quantifying SPT results, to determine a cut-off value for a positive SPT for histamine equivalent prick -index (HEP) area, and to study the accuracy of predicting cashew nut reactions in double-blind placebo-controlled food challenge (DBPCFC) tests with the different SPT methods.MethodsData of 172 children with cashew nut sensitisation were used for the analysis. All patients underwent a DBPCFC with cashew nut. Per patient, the average diameter and scanned area of the wheal size were recorded. In addition, the same data for the histamine-induced wheal were collected for each patient. The accuracy in predicting the outcome of the DBPCFC using four different SPT readings (i.e. average diameter, area, HEP-index diameter, HEP-index area) were compared in a Receiver-Operating Characteristic (ROC) plot.ResultsCharacterizing the wheal size by the average diameter method is inaccurate compared to scanning method. A wheal average diameter of 3 mm is generally considered as a positive SPT cut-off value and an equivalent HEP-index area cut-off value of 0.4 was calculated. The four SPT methods yielded a comparable area under the curve (AUC) of 0.84, 0.85, 0.83 and 0.83, respectively. The four methods showed comparable accuracy in predicting cashew nut reactions in a DBPCFC.ConclusionsThe ‘scanned area method’ is theoretically more accurate in determining the wheal area than the ‘average diameter method’ and is recommended in academic research. A HEP-index area of 0.4 is determined as cut-off value for a positive SPT. However, in clinical practice, the ‘average diameter method’ is also useful, because this method provides similar accuracy in predicting cashew nut allergic reactions in the DBPCFC.Trial registration: Trial number NTR3572

No abstract

No abstract

Purpose Functional neuroimaging is a powerful and versatile tool to investigate central lower urinary tract (LUT) control. Despite the increasing body of literature there is a lack of comprehensive overviews on LUT control. Thus, we aimed to execute a coordinate based meta-analysis of all PET and fMRI evidence on descending central LUT control, i.e. pelvic floor muscle contraction (PFMC) and micturition. Materials and methods A systematic literature search of all relevant libraries was performed in August 2020. Coordinates of activity were extracted from eligible studies to perform an activation likelihood estimation (ALE) using a threshold of uncorrected p <0.001. Results 20 of 6858 identified studies, published between 1997 and 2020, were included. Twelve studies investigated PFMC (1xPET, 11xfMRI) and eight micturition (3xPET, 5xfMRI). The PFMC ALE analysis (n = 181, 133 foci) showed clusters in the primary motor cortex, supplementary motor cortex, cingulate gyrus, frontal gyrus, thalamus, supramarginal gyrus, and cerebellum. The micturition ALE analysis (n = 107, 98 foci) showed active clusters in the dorsal pons, including the pontine micturition center, the periaqueductal gray, cingulate gyrus, frontal gyrus, insula and ventral pons. Overlap of PFMC and micturition was found in the cingulate gyrus and thalamus. Conclusions For the first time the involved core brain areas of LUT motor control were determined using ALE. Furthermore, the involved brain areas for PFMC and micturition are partially distinct. Further neuroimaging studies are required to extend this ALE analysis and determine the differences between a healthy and a dysfunctional LUT. This requires standardization of protocols and task-execution.