Talk:MELISA

Citation Style
What citation style is this using? I'm not sure whether they are books or articles and their place of publication, etc. Can you clarify this? gren グレン 22:55, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Recognized medical condition?
I am wondering if one can really say that titanium allergy per se is a "recognized medical condition"? I have read the 18th article referenced as part of some work on biocompatibility issues, and the authors only claim to have found a possibility for titanium hypersensitivity in some individuals. The other link does not talk about allergy at all, but about immune response to particulate matter, in that case titanium - but particulate matter of any kind has the potential of inducing immune response reactions, and it is still not the same as allergy. This needs more work, and perhaps updated links. --62.156.205.18 (talk) 14:39, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

I find the text misleading
Other authors doubt that the MELISA test is of any use at all.

THE ‘MEMORY LYMPHOCYTE IMMUNOSTIMULATION ASSAY’ (MELISA) IS USELESS FOR THE DETECTION OF METAL ALLERGY

Robert A.P. Koene, MD, PhD, emeritus professor of Nephrology Radboud University, Nijmegen, The Netherlands

Originally published as an Editorial Comment in Ned Tijdschr Geneeskd 2005;149:2090-2091, titled: 'Memory lymphocyte immunostimulation assay' (MELISA): onbruikbaar bij de diagnostiek van metaalallergie.

ABSTRACT During the past several years, there has been an advertising campaign, especially focused on dentists, to promote the so-called ‘memory lymphocyte immunostimulation assay’ (MELISA) for the detection of metal allergy. A study of the sparse scientific literature reveals that, as a consequence of its high number of false-positive results, this test is of no use for the diagnosis of metal allergy. Moreover, the claims of the developers of the test that metal allergy plays a role in several immune-mediated diseases, metabolic diseases, and neurological or mental disorders are not based on sound scientific evidence. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 140.166.6.121 (talk) 12:37, 19 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, the article is pretty bad. It looks like it was written by the MELISA company as an advert for their dubious test. The only independent research seems to indicate that the test isn't useful at all. I have added some references and made some changes to the article, but it might need more work. --sciencewatcher (talk) 15:25, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

The use of ® in the lede?
Should MELISA use ® in the lede? I'm going by WP:MoS, I don't think it is needed for context. What's other people's thoughts? Obviously, I didn't want to remove it without a consensus! Tommi1986 let's talk! 12:33, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

Use in fringe medicine
A potentially useful reference: Laboratory tests commonly used in complementary and alternative medicine: a review of the evidence. Also, this article—though it does conclude that MELISA isn't useful—seems to be an example of anti-vaccine cargo culting. Autoimmune/inflammatory syndrome induced by adjuvants is not a real condition. ScienceFlyer (talk) 18:46, 21 December 2022 (UTC)