text_1: In testing for allergies, a single shot may suffice
text_2: This story reports on the use of a blood test, Immunoglobulin E (IgE), to diagnose allergies. The shots would replace the traditional method of diagnosis – a series of skin pricks to show a reaction to various allergens. While this story does a good job of explaining the benefits of having one blood test compared to a series of skin pricks, the story does not adequately describe the strength of the available evidence. The story states that the blood tests were developed in the 1970s but that newer tests have become available more recently. The story does say that the test is available and comments that its use is limited in the U.S. However, the story does not quantify the benefits of the blood test compared to the skin test. It is not clear from the story if the blood test results in better outcomes for the patient other than convenience and fewer side effects. The question of whether using the blood test in combination with treatment results in better outcomes for the patient is unanswered. Furthermore, the story only mentions one harm of the blood test – getting the blood drawn itself. The story should have mentioned other harms such as what happens with false positive or negative results or how the results may be misinterpreted by non-allergy specialist clinicians. Finally, the story commits disease mongering by not explaining that the blood and skin tests are only used in those with severe allergies. Most people with common pet or seasonal allergies will not require this kind of testing. Furthermore, the story overstates the risk that children with allergies have of developing respiratory problems and asthma later on.