{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.04148471615720524, 'fraction_numerical': 0.033478893740902474, 'mean_word_length': 4.801687763713081, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Comparison of the Performance of Skin Prick and ISAC Tests in the Diagnosis of Allergy.

Summary
The recent European Union and Italian regulations in the matter of in vivo test could strongly impact on current diagnostic approach, increasing the usage of in vitro tests in daily clinical practice. We evaluated 506 patients with both skin prick test and a microarray system (ImmunoCAP ISAC 112). The overall evaluation between ImmunoCAP® ISAC vs SPT showed a moderate agreement (k=0.509, 95% C.I. 0.480-0.540, SE: 0.016) considering both aeroallergens and food allergens. When we considered the concordant results (double-positive plus double-negatives), the agreement ranged from 69% to 80% for pollen allergens, between 74% and 76% for dust mites, and between 74% and 93% for animal epithelia. In the case of food allergens, the accordance was pretty lower, accounting values ranging from 67% to 86%. ISAC testing identified from 22% to 26% more cases than SPTs in peach and nuts hyper-sensitivity. In 2.8% of the control group, the ISAC-test failed to detect an allergy sensitization caused by dust mite, shrimp, Anisakis, or seed storage proteins. Multiplex testing is more than a promising tool for more precise and comprehensive profiling of allergic patients and can be considered as a second-line approach, after the anamnesis, in the diagnosis of allergic diseases.