GEN-MKT-18-7897-A
Jun 21, 2017 | Blogs, Food / Beverage | 0 comments
A recent study published by the Annals of Allergy, Asthma, and Immunology (ACAAI), pointed out, in a study of 109 people tested, that skin prick tests are not 100 percent reliable. In the study, participants were subjected to oral food challenges prior to skin testing in which 50 percent of individuals had no reaction. It was also discovered that blood tests were not full-proof even though they measure the presence of IgE antibodies to specific foods. These results are not surprising given that 50 to 60 percent of tests result in false-positives.
This occurs for several reasons:
It would seem, therefore, that more reliable tests are needed which brings me back to the lab. Today, blood tests are commonly interpreted using Enzyme-Linked Immunosorbent Assay (ELISA) despite a high incidence of false-positives. ELISA is affordable, straightforward, and provides effective testing results when used in conjunction with a person’s medical history. However mass spectrometry is more effective in detecting allergens due to its sensitivity, ability to correspond to unique allergen peptides, and its multi-allergen capabilities. Yes, mass spec is more expensive, but because of their versatility and sensitivity, you get a swift ROI while reducing those pesky false positives. You can learn more about Mass Spectrometry Myths in one of my previous posts.
Want to learn more about mass spectrometry and food allergen testing? Visit our Allergen page or read previous blog posts.
Useful FAQ document to enable researchers to focus on their scientific discoveries and insights rather than the complexities of data management.
In today’s environment in which labs are under pressure to reduce operating costs, many will compare the cost of a service contract between third-party providers and the original equipment manufacturer (OEM). At first glance, going with a service contract from a third-party provider may seem like a smart financial move, but experience shows they can introduce risks that affect reliability and compliance.
We recently hosted a webinar focused on streamlining forensic toxicology workflows, featuring expert speakers Maria Sarkisian from the San Francisco Office of the Chief Medical Examiner (SFOCME) and Dr. Dick Paul Kloos from the Netherlands Forensic Institute (NFI). The webinar explored innovative LC-MS/MS strategies that help forensic labs improve efficiency. In this blog, we share highlights from the Q&A session, where our speakers addressed the audience’s questions and shared actionable insights for forensic laboratory professionals.
Posted by
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Share this post with your network