In their daily life, individuals with persistent often-unconfirmed intolerances are impaired in their ability to select and enjoy food during mealtimes. This is particularly disabling because food choice is now being recognized as an important aspect influencing quality of life and compliance with weight loss or other therapeutic dietary interventions. By understanding food intolerance definition, we may be able to identify important underlying pathophysiological mechanisms which may offer new therapeutic targets for the treatment of some common disease states. Food frequency or elimination trials are generally used for the food intolerance definition, though the food intolerance test is beginning to attract attention as a potential aid in the management of some health conditions. The mechanisms behind intolerances and what influences the onset and continuation of this condition are relatively unexplored. Importantly, increasing awareness of the condition is also necessary, so that patients do not head in the direction of unnecessary and costly food intolerance treatment.
Patients with suspected food intolerance may be looking for ways to confirm their feelings about food triggering unpleasant symptoms. One way they can do this is to have one of the many food intolerance test that are widely available. From a healthcare provider perspective, it is important that, where evidence supports the testing, the various methodologies employed are accurate. In this paper, we consider the need for testing in the food intolerance definition and carefully evaluate various commonly employed testing methods. This is to highlight the complexity of testing in this field and why no one should rely on just one test result from all those that are offered when considering diet changes. A comprehensive individual assessment is key in the management of patient care where suspected food intolerances are involved.
Elimination diets that are supervised and low in side effects are simple, safe, and cost-effective to assist patients in identifying what foods are causing their symptoms. Specific IgG blood tests may help guide the identification of foods to be eliminated but may also produce a high number of false results. Food intolerance test in the form of specific IgG blood tests is a common type of test, but they are generally considered an alternative food intolerance treatment to an elimination diet. Healthcare providers commissioning these tests should be aware of the issue of false results and the need for individual interpretation against all the facts, as well as the need to review patient symptom responses and support their subjective evaluation. Although practical and sometimes effective, elimination diets are rarely informed by robust scientific evidence and may not be appropriate for all patient groups.
Therefore, we wish to provide healthcare providers with an up-to-date evidence review about the range of potential options to test for food intolerance meaning. A comprehensive assistive tool has been developed to provide guidance in the assessment of food intolerance that includes which tests can be used to inform diagnosis. We hope that the evidence paper will also provide useful insights to patients and consumer organizations. A qualitative evidence review synthesizes the evidence of the accuracy of methodologies that assess for psychological food intolerance. Included are tests for IgG antibodies, complementary and alternative medicine tests, tests that look at markers of allergy with no indicators as to the presence of allergy, and IgG enzyme-linked immunosorbent assays. There is very limited evidence about the accuracy of any of the included tests to detect food intolerance. There is also moderate evidence to suggest that dietary history and exclusion, diet-specific questionnaires are inadequate tests for the food intolerance definition. Such tests are prone to sizeable error causing false positives and negatives in patients, often with serious consequences. This underlines the need for a sound evidence base to inform practice and to acknowledge the somewhat fickle nature of judgments in such cases.
Patients with suspected food intolerance may be looking for ways to confirm their feelings about food triggering unpleasant symptoms. One way they can do this is to have one of the many food intolerance test that are widely available. From a healthcare provider perspective, it is important that, where evidence supports the testing, the various methodologies employed are accurate. In this paper, we consider the need for testing in the food intolerance definition and carefully evaluate various commonly employed testing methods. This is to highlight the complexity of testing in this field and why no one should rely on just one test result from all those that are offered when considering diet changes. A comprehensive individual assessment is key in the management of patient care where suspected food intolerances are involved.
Elimination diets that are supervised and low in side effects are simple, safe, and cost-effective to assist patients in identifying what foods are causing their symptoms. Specific IgG blood tests may help guide the identification of foods to be eliminated but may also produce a high number of false results. Food intolerance test in the form of specific IgG blood tests is a common type of test, but they are generally considered an alternative food intolerance treatment to an elimination diet. Healthcare providers commissioning these tests should be aware of the issue of false results and the need for individual interpretation against all the facts, as well as the need to review patient symptom responses and support their subjective evaluation. Although practical and sometimes effective, elimination diets are rarely informed by robust scientific evidence and may not be appropriate for all patient groups.
Therefore, we wish to provide healthcare providers with an up-to-date evidence review about the range of potential options to test for food intolerance meaning. A comprehensive assistive tool has been developed to provide guidance in the assessment of food intolerance that includes which tests can be used to inform diagnosis. We hope that the evidence paper will also provide useful insights to patients and consumer organizations. A qualitative evidence review synthesizes the evidence of the accuracy of methodologies that assess for psychological food intolerance. Included are tests for IgG antibodies, complementary and alternative medicine tests, tests that look at markers of allergy with no indicators as to the presence of allergy, and IgG enzyme-linked immunosorbent assays. There is very limited evidence about the accuracy of any of the included tests to detect food intolerance. There is also moderate evidence to suggest that dietary history and exclusion, diet-specific questionnaires are inadequate tests for the food intolerance definition. Such tests are prone to sizeable error causing false positives and negatives in patients, often with serious consequences. This underlines the need for a sound evidence base to inform practice and to acknowledge the somewhat fickle nature of judgments in such cases.
Dietary modifications are essential for the management of food intolerances. The goal is to reduce or eliminate ingestion of foods, additives, or chemicals triggering symptoms. The elimination diet is often associated with a reintroduction strategy in order to determine the impact of each suspect food or trigger on symptoms, as well as its tolerated quantity. Dietary advice should include general health considerations, encouraging patients to adopt a varied and balanced diet in terms of nutrients and macronutrients. In real life, the choice between the elimination diet alone and the elimination diet combined with a subsequent reintroduction strategy greatly depends upon the resources and expertise of the physician giving dietary counseling and the willingness to adhere to restrictive diets of the patient.
Several support tools can be useful in managing this approach: a food and symptoms diary, food journals, and symptom questionnaires. The use of food journals could also be complemented by regular meetings with a healthcare professional or a nutritional counselor. In some cases, specific tools can be used to support these medical nutritional therapies. Probiotics and symbiotic intake, for example, have been described in clinical practice as a valid therapeutic option to support the treatment of lactose intolerance. The food intolerance treatment must be personalized, and the elimination diet employed must be based not only on the pathophysiology of the diseases but also incorporate economic and social cultural factors. Personalization of the approach is undoubted and is the gold standard. A few case studies are reported where cat, chicken, and fermented dairy proteins were linked to skin symptoms. Skin symptoms disappeared after avoiding foods and became worse after re-consumption in these patients. More advanced mechanistic perception has been described in gluten-related disorders. Lifestyle improvements and a careful look at preventive and non-pharmacological approaches such as food avoidance, dietary habits, and physical exercise habits should cover this approach. On the other hand, the reintroduction phase must be navigated always with a good starting point.
Because knowledge of the microbiome of affected individuals is rare, it could be an important study area. Establishing a comprehensive online survey of experts in food intolerance management could result in a combined response to generate appropriate problem-oriented research questions that can be funded and carried out with multiple collaborators. We hope to conduct a yearly update of this review using the Delphi method to provide an annual needs assessment of our community. Research on food intolerance meaning is still in its infancy, and there is hope to continue reaching out to the wider networks to ensure that ongoing research improvements are possible. In conclusion, increased awareness and dialogue on food intolerances are required, since there is much misinterpretation and lack of knowledge about the subject. It is hoped that with greater recognition of food intolerance, and more interest by suitably qualified researchers to address the limitations identified above, ambitious and exhaustive responses to clinical questions in food intolerance meaning may be addressed. It also requires health care sufferers to be vocal about the impact of their food intolerance on their lives in order to attract more funded research. In a broad sense, it is believed that this review can set the stage for future research and will be valuable to a range of health care professionals, as well as patient communities. In doing so, multidisciplinary input with joint discussion and collective responses to empirically test answers to simple and serious challenges for food intolerances is encouraged. In conclusion, a proactive alliance of health care providers in concert with the individuals trying to solve their own food-related health problems may offer considerable benefit, both for individuals seeking solutions and for the publication of relevant, unequivocally beneficial data.
English 
Deutsch 
Türkçe 
Español 
Italiano 
Français 
Português 
Português do Brasil 
Русский 
العربية