Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association· 2026Q1· Review
Systematic review supports the idea that no alternative test presently replaces elimination diet test and oral food challenge to diagnose canine adverse food reactions
- 0citations
- Q1SCImago
- 2026year
Short summary
A systematic review of 59 studies (1986-2025) found no alternative diagnostic test reliably replaces the elimination diet test plus oral food challenge (EDT+OFC) for diagnosing adverse food reactions in dogs.
AI-generated from the title and abstract; the full text is not read.
Key points
- The elimination diet test plus oral food challenge (EDT+OFC) remains the most consistently validated approach for diagnosing canine adverse food reactions.
- Serological IgG/IgE and salivary tests showed poor correlation with clinical outcomes.
- The standardized patch test demonstrated a high negative predictive value but limited practical value.
- Cellular tests, specifically lymphocyte proliferation, showed the closest concordance with oral food challenge results.
- Molecular/proteomic methods are advancing allergen characterization and understanding of cross-reactivity.
AI-generated from the title and abstract; the full text is not read.
Abstract
Background: Adverse food reactions in dogs are clinically heterogeneous and overlap with canine atopic dermatitis, and diagnosis still relies on an elimination diet test followed by oral food challenge (EDT+OFC). Numerous allergen-specific tests have been proposed, but their diagnostic value remains controversial. Our objective was to identify, synthesize, and critically evaluate the diagnostic tests used or investigated for canine food allergy, with emphasis on their clinical validity, applicability, and agreement with the EDT+OFC reference standard. Methods: In accordance with PRISMA (ie, Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) 2020 guidelines, Scopus and PubMed were searched without publication-year restrictions, and records were independently screened in duplicate at the title, abstract, and full-text stages. Results: A meta-analysis was not feasible owing to heterogeneity. Fifty-nine studies (1986 to 2025) from 16 countries were included and grouped into elimination/provocation diets and serological, cutaneous, cellular, and molecular tests. The most consistently validated approach remained EDT+OFC. Serological IgG/IgE (and salivary) tests were poorly correlated with clinical outcome; the standardized patch test showed the best cutaneous performance (high negative predictive value), cellular tests (lymphocyte proliferation) showed the closest concordance with the OFC, and molecular/proteomic methods advanced allergen characterization and the understanding of cross-reactivity. Clinical Relevance: No alternative test reliably replaces EDT+OFC. Although patch testing may seem beneficial, its practical value is limited, and cellular assays represent a promising area for future biomarker research; standardized protocols and well-designed prospective studies are needed.
The authors' abstract, as published at the source. Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association, 2026 · DOI ↗
Continue with a free account
Ask the paper: 3 free questions a day about this paper; save it, get its citation, new summaries every day for your field. Takeaways are Premium.
Continue free on the webSign in with Google or Apple; no card needed. You come back to this paper.
On your phone:
Field: Immunology and Allergy
Immunology and AllergyMedicine