Reproducibility of patch test results: A concurrent right-versus-left study using TRUE Test™

Contact Dermatitis

Volumn 50, Issue 5, 2004, Pages 304-312

  Ale, S Iris ^a   Maibach, Howard I ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF URUGUAY   (Uruguay)

^b UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

Author keywords

Allergen; Allergic contact dermatitis; Clinical relevance; Patch testing; Reproducibility

Indexed keywords

ALLERGEN; BALSAM PERU; COBALT CHLORIDE; DICHROMATE POTASSIUM; DISULFIRAM; FORMALDEHYDE; FRAGRANCE; LANOLIN ALCOHOL; NICKEL SULFATE; PHENYLENEDIAMINE; ROSIN; THIOMERSAL;

ADOLESCENT; ADULT; AGED; ALLERGIC REACTION; ARTICLE; BACK; CONTROLLED STUDY; FEMALE; HUMAN; HYPOTHESIS; MALE; METHODOLOGY; MYROXYLON; PATCH TEST; PERFORMANCE; REPRODUCIBILITY; SKIN MANIFESTATION;

ADOLESCENT; ADULT; AGED; ALLERGENS; DERMATITIS, ALLERGIC CONTACT; FEMALE; HUMANS; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; PATCH TESTS; REPRODUCIBILITY OF RESULTS;

EID: 3042810412     PISSN: 01051873     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/j.0105-1873.2004.00351.x     Document Type: Article

References (69)

1. Fischer T I, Hansen J, Kreilgård B, Maibach H I. The science of patch test standardization. Immun Allergy Clin 1989: 9: 417-434.
2. Fischer T, Maibach H I. Improved, but not perfect, patch testing. Am J Contact Dermat 1990: 1: 73-90.
3. Gollhausen R, Przybilla B, Ring J. Reproducibility of patch tests. J Am Acasd Dermatol 1989: 21: 1196-1202.
4. Gollhausen R, Przybilla B, Ring J. Reproducibility of patch test results. Comparison of TRUE Test and Finn Chamber test results. J Am Acad Dermatol 1989: 21: 843-846.
5. Brasch J, Henseler T, Aberer W et al. Reproducibility of patch tests. A multicenter study of synchronous left-versus right-sided patch tests by the German Contact Dermatitis Research Group. J Am Acad Dermatol 1994: 31: 584-591.
6. Breit R, Agathos M. Quality control in epicutaneous testing. Reproducibility in the right-left comparison. Hautarzt 1992: 43: 417-421.
7. Lindelöf B. A left versus right side comparison study of Finn Chamber patch test in 200 consecutive patients. Contact Dermatitis 1990: 22: 288-289.
8. Bousema M T, Geursen A M, van Joost T H. High reproducibility of patch tests. (Letter). J Am Acad Dermatol 1991: 24: 322.
9. Lachapelle J-M, Antoine J L. Problems raised by the simultaneous reproducibility of positive allergic patch test reactions in man. J Am Acad Dermatol 1989: 21: 850-854.
10. Lachapelle J-M. A left versus right side comparative study of Epiquick patch test results in 100 consecutive patients. Contact Dermatitis 1989: 20: 51-56.
11. Machácková J, Seda O. Reproducibility of patch tests. (Letter). J Am Acad Dermatol 1991: 25: 732-733.
12. Bourke J F, Batta K, Prais L et al. The reproducibility of patch tests. Br J Dermatol 1999: 140: 102-105.
13. Belsito D V, Storrs F J, Taylor J S et al. Reproducibility of patch tests: a United States multicenter study. Am J Contact Dermat 1992: 3: 193-200.
14. Fischer T, Maibach H I. The thin layer rapid use epicutaneous test (TRUE-test), a new patch test method with high accuracy. Br J Dermatol 1984: 112: 63-68.
15. Kreilgård B, Hansen J. Aspects of pharmaceutical and chemical standardization of patch test materials. J Am Acad Dermatol 1989: 21: 836-838.
16. Prue C, Martinson M E, McAnally P M, Stagner W C. Post-marketing survey results of T.R.U.E. TEST, a new allergen patch test. Am J Contact Dermat 1998: 9: 6-10.
17. Rietschel R L, Marks J G, Adams R M et al. Preliminary studies of the TRUE Test patch test system in the United States. J Am Acad Dermatol 1989: 21: 841-843.
18. Lachapelle J-M, Bruynzeel D P, Ducombs G et al. European multicenter study of the TRUE Test™. Contact Dermatitis 1988: 19: 91-97.
19. Ruhnek-Forsbeck M. Comparative multicenter studies with TRUE Test and Finn Chambers in eight Swedish hospitals. J Am Acad Dermatol 1989: 4: 846-849.
20. Ruhnek-Forsbeck M, Fischer T, Meding B et al. Comparative multicenter study with TRUE Test™ and Finn Chambers® in eight Swedish hospitals. Acta Derm Venereol (Stockh) 1988: 68: 123-128.
21. Stenberg B, Billberg K, Nordin L. Swedish multicenter study with TRUE Test, Panel 2. Contact Dermatitis 1989: 21: 518-523.
22. Fischer T, Kreilgård B, Maibach H I. The True value of the TRUE Test for allergic contact dermatitis. Curr Allergy Asthma Rep 2001: 1: 316-322.
23. Wilkinson D S, Fregert S, Magnusson B et al. Terminology of contact dermatitis. Acta Derm Venereol 1970: 50: 287-292.
24. Ale S I, Maibach H I. Clinical relevance in Allergic Contact Dermatitis. Dermatosen Beruf Umwelt 1995: 43: 119-121.
25. Lachapelle J M. A proposed relevance scoring system for positive allergic patch test reactions: practical implications and limitations. Contact Dermatitis 1997: 36: 39-43.
26. De Groot A C. Clinical relevance of positive patch test reactions to preservatives and fragrances. Contact Dermatitis 1999: 41: 224-226.
27. Ale S I, Maibach H I. Scientific basis of patch testing. Part III. Dermatosen Beruf Umwelt 2002: 50: 131-133.
28. Mitchell J C. The angry back syndrome: Eczema creates eczema. Contact Dermatitis 1975: 1: 193-194.
29. Williams H C, Burney P G, Pembroke A C, Hay R J. The U.K. Working Party's diagnostic criteria for atopic dermatitis in a population setting. III. Independent hospital validation. Br J Dermatol 1994: 131: 406-416.
30. Kim H O, Wester R C, Mc. Master J A, Bucks D A, Maibach H I. Skin absorption from patch test systems. Contact Dermatitis 1987: 17: 178-180.
31. Fischer T, Maibach H I. Amount of nickel applied with a standard patch test. Contact Dermatitis 1984: 11: 285-287.
32. Shaw D W, Zhai H, Maibach H I, Niklasson B. Dosage considerations in patch testing with liquid allergens. Contact Dermatitis 2002: 47: 86-90.
33. Moffit D L, Sharp L A, Sansom J E. Audit of Finn Chamber® patch test preparation. Contact Dermatitis 2002: 47: 334-336.
34. Marzulli F N, Maibach H I. Effect of vehicles and elicitation concentration in contact dermatitis testing (I). Experimental contact sensitization in humans. Contact Dermatitis 1976: 2: 325.
35. Marzulli F N, Maibach H I. Further studies of effects of vehicles and elicitation concentration in experimental contact sensitization testing in humans. Contact Dermatitis 1980: 6: 131-133.
36. Tanglertsampan C, Maibach H I. The role of vehicles in diagnostic patch testing. A reappraisal. Contact Dermatitis 1993: 29: 169-174.
37. Wester R, Maibach H I. Relationship of topical dose and percutaneous absorption in rhesus monkey and man. J Invest Dermatol 1976: 67: 518.
38. Atkinson J C, Rodi S B. Effects of vehicles and elicitation concentration in contact dermatitis testing. II. Statistical analysis of data. Contact Dermatitis 1976: 2: 330-334.
39. Lee E E, Maibach H I. Role of vehicles in diagnosing contact allergy: an update. Exog Dermatol 2002: 1: 107-111.
40. Mendelow A Y, Forsyth A, Florence A T, Baillie A J. Patch testing for nickel allergy. The influence of the vehicle on the response rate to topical nickel sulphate. Contact Dermatitis 1985: 3: 29-33.
41. Fischer T, Maibach H I. Patch test allergens in petrolatum: a reappraisal. Contact Dermatitis 1984: 11: 224-228.
42. Wahlberg J E. Petrolatum-A reliable vehicle for metal allergens? Contact Dermatitis 1980: 6: 134-136.
43. Van Ketel W G. Petrolatum again: an adequate vehicle in cases of metal allergy? Contact Dermatitis 1979: 5: 192-193.
44. Vanneste D, Martin P, Lachapelle J-M. Comparative study of the density of particles in suspensions for patch testing. Contact Dermatitis 1980: 6: 197-203.
45. Fisher T, Rystedt I. False-positive, follicular and irritant patch test reactions to metal salts. Contact Dermatitis 1985: 12: 93-98.
46. Nakada T, Hostýnek J J, Maibach H I. Nickel content of standard patch test materials. Contact Dermatitis 1998: 39: 68-70.
47. 2. Contact Dermatitis 1984: 10: 25-29.
48. Skog E, Forsbeck M. Comparison between 24- and 48-hour exposure time in patch testing. Contact Dermatitis 1978: 4: 362-364.
49. Goh C L, Wong W K, Ng S K. Comparison between 1-day and 2-day occlusion times in patch testing. Contact Dermatitis 1994: 31: 48-50.
50. Manuskiatti W, Maibach H I. 1- versus 2- and 3-day diagnostic patch testing. Contact Dermatitis 1996: 35: 197-200.
51. Mathias C G T, Maibach H I. When to read the patch test? Int J Dermatol 1979: 3: 127-128.
52. Todd J, Handley J, Metwali M. Day 4 is better than day 3 for a single patch test reading. Contact Dermatitis 1996: 34: 402-404.
53. Rietschel R L, Adams R M, Maibach H I et al. The case for patch test readings beyond day 2. J Am Acad Dermatol 1988: 18: 42-45.
54. Jonker M J, Bruynzeel D P. The outcome of an additional patch-test reading on days 6 or 7. Contact Dermatitis 2000: 42: 330-335.
55. Bruze M, Isaksson M, Edman B et al. A study on expert reading of patch test reactions: inter-individual accordance. Contact Dermatitis 1995: 32: 331-337.
56. Magnusson B, Hersle K. Patch test methods II. Regional variations of patch test responses. Acta Derm Venereol 1965: 45: 257-261.
57. Lindelöf B. Regional variations of patch test response in nickel-sensitive patients. Contact Dermatitis 1992: 26: 202-203.
58. Van Strien G A, Korstanje M J. Site variations in patch test responses on the back. Contact Dermatitis 1994: 31: 95-96.
59. Maibach H I. The E.S.S. - excited skin syndrome (alias the 'angry back'). In: New Trends in Allergy, Ring J, Burg G (eds): Berlin, Heidelerg, New York, Springer-Verlag, 1981.
60. Koehler A M, Maibach H I. Skin hypo-reactivity in relation to patch testing. Contact Dermatitis 2000: 42: 1-4.
61. Friedmann P S, Rees J L, White S I, Matthews N S. Low-dose exposure to antigen induces sub-clinical sensitization. Clin Exp Immunol 1990: 81: 507-509.
62. Rohold A E, Halkier Sorensen N, Andersen K E et al. Nickel patch test reactivity and the menstrual cycle. Acta Derm Venereol 1994: 74: 383-385.
63. McLelland J, Lawrence C M. Premenstrual exacerbation of nickel allergy. Br J Dermatol 1991: 125: 83-83.
64. Hindsén M, Bruze M, Christensen O B. Individual variation in nickel patch test reactivity. Am J Contact Dermatitis 1999: 10: 62-67.
65. Bruze M. Seasonal influence on routine patch test results. Contact Dermatitis 1986: 14: 184.
66. Uter W, Geier J, Land M et al. Another look at seasonal variation in patch test results. Contact Dermatitis 2001: 44: 146-152.
67. Carmichael A J, Foulds J S, Bransbury D S. Loss of lanolin patch test positivity. Br J Dermatol 1991: 125: 573-576.
68. Rystedt I. Evaluation and relevance of isolated test reactions to cobalt. Contact Dermatitis 1979: 5: 233-238.
69. Ale S I, Maibach H I. Operational definition of allergic contact dermatitis. In: Advances in Dermatotoxicology, New York, Taylor & Francis, 2000.