2013
DOI: 10.1155/2013/920679
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Adverse Reactions to Foods and Food Allergy: Development and Reproducibility of a Questionnaire for Clinical Diagnosis

Abstract: Objective. To develop a questionnaire as a screening tool for adverse reactions to foods in children and to assess the technical reproducibility by test-retest. Methods. Reproducibility of the questionnaire was performed by the literature review, preparing the preliminary questionnaire, peer review, pretest, and retest analysis. The study of the test-retest reproducibility was cross-sectional and descriptive. Kappa coefficient was used to study the reproducibility of the questionnaire. The sample consisted of … Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
4

Citation Types

0
11
0
2

Year Published

2016
2016
2022
2022

Publication Types

Select...
5
1

Relationship

0
6

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 7 publications
(13 citation statements)
references
References 18 publications
0
11
0
2
Order By: Relevance
“…This questionnaire provided more detailed questions about the food involved in the FA reaction, associated symptoms, the time between food intake and the onset of the FA reaction, the reproducibility of the symptoms, and food exclusion in the daily diet (online suppl. Table S2) as previously described [4,5]. These questions were geared toward building up a clinical history, and a possible diagnosis of FA was considered if the replies met all of the following 3 criteria: the reaction symptoms started within 2 h of ingestion of the food implicated, the reaction was reproducible, and the food was excluded from the daily diet.…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…This questionnaire provided more detailed questions about the food involved in the FA reaction, associated symptoms, the time between food intake and the onset of the FA reaction, the reproducibility of the symptoms, and food exclusion in the daily diet (online suppl. Table S2) as previously described [4,5]. These questions were geared toward building up a clinical history, and a possible diagnosis of FA was considered if the replies met all of the following 3 criteria: the reaction symptoms started within 2 h of ingestion of the food implicated, the reaction was reproducible, and the food was excluded from the daily diet.…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Its design was based upon specific principles, as defined by a panel of experts in line with principles previously used in other publications using questionnaires in other fields of study, 16 , 17 , 18 as well as taking into account Portuguese 19 and European guidelines. 20 It was also based upon a questionnaire previously applied to children with food allergies, 21 with an adequate sample size calculated in accordance with appropriate recommendations. 22 , 23 The questionnaire aimed at screening for the presence of adverse food reactions and their risk factors.…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…In addition, the experts also suggested modifications deemed as relevant, proposed the inclusion of new aspects and reviewed semantics as well, in a procedure similar to that previously performed by Lyra et al. 21 The questionnaire was then converted into a Google Docs format in order to facilitate collection of data via a phone call.…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…An initial, screening questionnaire about AFR (Q1), containing questions about sociodemographic aspects, the previous occurrence and identification of food associated with the adverse reaction, was filled out by parents. When at least one food was identified as a potential trigger for a previous AFR, a second, previously tested, analysed for cross cultural validation [ 12 ] and more comprehensive questionnaire (Q2) was applied by the researchers to fully characterize reactions (Additional file 1 ). When Q1 and Q2 were both positive, SPT were performed and suspected food-specific IgE levels were determined.…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%