Sensitivity, specificity and positive predictive value of patch testing: The more you test, the more you get?

Contact Dermatitis

Volumn 42, Issue 6, 2000, Pages 315-317

  Diepgen, Thomas L ^a   Coenraads, Pieter Jan ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF HEIDELBERG   (Germany)

^b UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER GRONINGEN   (Netherlands)

Author keywords

Allergic contact dermatitis; Diagnostic test; False positive; Misclassification; Sensitivity; Specificity; Statistics

Indexed keywords

ALLERGEN;

ARTICLE; CONTACT DERMATITIS; CONTROLLED STUDY; DIAGNOSTIC ACCURACY; DIAGNOSTIC VALUE; HUMAN; LABORATORY DIAGNOSIS; PATCH TEST; PATHOPHYSIOLOGY; PREDICTION; SKIN ALLERGY;

DERMATITIS, ALLERGIC CONTACT; FALSE POSITIVE REACTIONS; HUMANS; PATCH TESTS; PREDICTIVE VALUE OF TESTS; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY;

EID: 0034110803     PISSN: 01051873     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1034/j.1600-0536.2000.042006315.x     Document Type: Article

References (8)

1. 1. Nethercott J R. Practical problems in the use of patch testing in the evaluation of patients with contact dermatitis. Curr Probl Dermatol 1990: 2: 4.
2. 2. Agresti A. Categorical data analysis. Wiley, New York 1990.
3. 3. Newell D J. Misclassification in 2×2 tables. Biometrics 1963: 19: 187-188.
4. 4. Greenland S. Statistical uncertainty due to misclassification: implications for validation substudies. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology 1988: 41: 1167-1174.
5. 5. Brenner H. Notes of the assessement of trend in the presence of nondifferential exposure misclassification. Epidemiology 1992: 3: 420-427.
6. 6. Bourke J F, Batta K, Prais L, Abdullah A, Foulds I S. The reproducibility of patch tests. Br J Dermatol 1999: 140: 102-105.
7. 7. Brasch J, Henseler T, Aberer W et al. Reproducibility of patch tests. J Am Acad Dermatol 1994: 31: 584-591.
8. 8. Kuss O, Diepgen T L. Proper statistical analysis of trans-epidermal water loss (TEWL) measurements in bioengineering studies. Contact Dermatitis 1998: 39: 64-67.