Historical perspective on the use of visual grading scales in evaluating skin irritation and sensitization

Contact Dermatitis

Volumn 65, Issue 2, 2011, Pages 65-75

  Farage, Miranda A ^a   Maibach, Howard I ^b   Andersen, Klaus E ^c   Lachapelle, Jean Marie ^d   Kern, Petra ^a   Ryan, Cindy ^a   Ely, Jeanne ^a   Kanti, Amita ^a  

^a PROCTER AND GAMBLE COMPANY   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

^c ODENSE UNIVERSITY HOSPITAL   (Denmark)

^d UNIVERSITÉ CATHOLIQUE DE LOUVAIN   (Belgium)

Author keywords

contact dermatitis; grading erythema; patch testing; skin irritation; visual assessment

Indexed keywords

IRRITANT AGENT;

ARTICLE; BIOENGINEERING; BLISTER; CLINICAL ASSESSMENT; CLINICAL EVALUATION; COLORIMETRY; ECZEMA; ERYTHEMA; HUMAN; INTERMETHOD COMPARISON; PAPULE; QUANTITATIVE ANALYSIS; RATING SCALE; RELIABILITY; SKIN EDEMA; SKIN IRRITATION; SKIN SENSITIZATION; SKIN ULCER; SKIN WATER LOSS; SKINFOLD THICKNESS; VISUAL GRADING SCALE;

EID: 79960235583     PISSN: 01051873     EISSN: 16000536     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/j.1600-0536.2011.01912.x     Document Type: Article

References (72)

1. Movat H Z., The acute inflammatory process. In: Inflammation, Immunity and Hypersensitivity, 2nd edition, Movat H Z, (ed.): Hagerstown, MD, Harper & Row, 1979: pp. 1-162.
2. Devos S A, van der Valk P G., Epicutaneous patch testing. Eur J Dermatol 2002: 12: 506-513.
3. Lachapelle J M., Giant Steps in Patch Testing: A Historical Memoir: Phoenix, AZ, Smart Practice, 2010: 169 pp.
4. Sulzberger M B, Wise F., The contact or patch test in dermatology: its uses, advantages and limitations. Arch Derm Syphilol 1931: 23: 519-531.
5. Graves J M., The patch test-its use in dermatology-report of cases. Cal West Med 1932: 36: 157-160.
6. Mayer R L., Das Gewerbeekzem. Schriften aus dem Gesamtgebiet der Gewerbehygiene: Berlin, Verlag von Julius Springer, 1930, Neue Folge, Heft 30: pp. 1-89.
7. Blumenthal F, Jaffé K., Ekzem und Idiosynkrasie: Berlin, Verlag von S. Karger, 1933: pp. 1-188.
8. Bonnevie P., 1939 Aetiologie und Patholgenise de Ekzemkrankheiten. Klinische Studien über due Ursachen der Ekzeme unter besonderer Berücksichtigung des Diagnosticshen Werted der Eksamproben: Copenhagen/Barth, Letapzig, Busch.
9. Schwartz L, Peck S M., The patch test in contact dermatitis. Public Health Rep 1944: 59: 546-557.
10. Draize J H, Woodard G, Calvery H O., Methods for the study of irritation and toxicity of substances applied topically to the skin and mucous membranes. J Pharmacol Exp Ther 1944: 82: 377-390.
11. Guild T B., Window patch test. Arch Derm Syphilol 1939: 39: 807-810.
12. Rokstad I., Patch test, new modification of (the chamber method). Arch Dermat Syphilol 1940: 41: 649-653.
13. Cronin E., Technique of patch testing. In: Contact Dermatitis, Cronin E, (ed.): Edinburgh, Churchill Livingstone, 1980: pp. 1-19.
14. Fisher A A., The role of patch testing. In: Contact Dermatitis, 3rd edition, Fisher A A, (ed.): Philadelphia, PA, Lea & Febiger, 1986: pp. 9-29.
15. Wilkinson D S, Fregert S, Magnusson B et al., Terminology of contact dermatitis. Acta Derm Venereol 1970: 50: 287-292.
16. National Academy of Sciences. Dermal and eye toxicity tests. Principles and Procedures for Evaluating the Toxicity of Household Substances: Washington, DC, National Academy of Sciences, National Research Council, 1977: pp. 23-59.
17. Consumer Product Safety Commission CPSC. Consumer Product Safety Commission CPSC History, 2010. Available at: (last accessed 24 March 2010).
18. U.S. Environmental Protection. Agency, OPPTS harmonized test guidelines series 870-health effects test guidelines. OPPTS 870.2500 Acute Dermal Irritation, EPA712-C-98-196, August 1998. Available at: (last accessed 6 April 2010).
19. OECD. OECD guideline for the testing of chemicals 404. 24th April 2002. Acute toxicity: Dermal Irritation/Corrosion, 2002. Available at: (last accessed 2 April 2010).
20. Title 16: Commercial Practices PART 1500-hazardous substances and articles; administration and enforcement regulations § 1500.41 Method of testing primary irritant substances, 2010. (last accessed 2 April 2010) p442.
21. ASTM F 719-81 (Reapproved 2007). Standard Practice for Testing Biomaterials in Rabbits for Primary Skin Irritation, 2007. Available at: (last accessed 2 April 2010).
22. U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission. Office of compliance requirements under the Federal Hazardous Substances Act: labeling and banning requirements for chemicals and other hazardous substances. 15 U.S.C. § 1261 and 16 C.F.R. Part 1500, August 2002. Available at: (last accessed 2 April 2010).
23. Guidance to regulation (EC) No. 1272/2008 on classification, labeling and packaging of substances and mixtures. 27 July 2009. 3.2.2.1.2.5 Testing methods: in vivo data. 2009: p. 222. Available at: (last accessed 2 April 2010).
24. OECD. OECD guidelines for the testing of chemicals. Tests No. 430, 431 and 435, 2010. Available at: (last accessed 26 May 2010).
25. Marzulli F N, Maibach H I., The rabbit as a model for evaluating skin irritants: a comparison of results obtained on animals and man using repeated skin exposures. Food Cosmet Toxicol 1975: 13: 533-540.
26. Buehler E V., Delayed contact hypersensitivity in the guinea pig. Arch Dermatol 1965: 91: 171-175.
27. Ritz H L, Buehler E V., Planning, conduct, and interpretation of guinea pig sensitization patch tests. In: Current Concepts in Cutaneous Toxicity, Drill V A, Maibach H I, (eds): New York, Academic Press, 1980: pp, 25-40.
28. Maguire H C Jr., The bioassay of contact allergens in the guinea pig. J Soc Cosmet Chem 1973: 24: 151-162.
29. Kligman A M., The identification of contact allergens by human assay. III. The maximization test: a procedure for screening and rating contact sensitizers. J Invest Dermatol 1966: 47: 393-409.
30. Shelanski M V, Gabriel L., Cutaneous Toxicity Evaluation of Air Force Development Materials-IV. ASD Technical Report 61-77: Dayton, OH, McGregor & Werner, Inc., 1961. Contract No. AF 33(616)-6962, Project No. 7165, Task No. 71836.
31. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. OPPTS harmonized test guidelines series 870-health effects test guidelines. OPPTS 870.2600. Skin Sensitization. EPA 712-C-03-197, March 2003. Available at: (last accessed 6 April 2010).
32. OECD. OECD guideline for the testing of chemicals 406. 17th July 1992. Skin Sensitization, 1992. Available at: (last accessed 2 April 2010).
33. Active Standard: D 6355-07. Standard Test Method for Human Repeat Insult Patch Testing of Medical Gloves. ASTM International.
34. Klecak G., Identification of contact allergens: predictive tests in animals. In: Dermatotoxicology, 3rd edition, Marzulli F N, Maibach H I, (eds): New York, Hemisphere Publishing, 1987: pp. 227-276.
35. Andersen K E, Maibach H I., Guinea pig sensitization assays: an overview. In: Contact Allergy: Predictive Tests in Guinea Pigs, Vol. 14, Andersen K E, Maibach H I, (eds): Karger, Basel, Current Problems in Dermatology, 1985: pp. 263-290.
36. Marzulli F N, Maibach H I., Contact allergy: predictive testing in humans. In: Dermatotoxicology, 3rd edition, Marzulli F N, Maibach H I, (eds): New York, Hemisphere Publishing, 1987: pp. 319-340. (Alternative ref. Marzulli 1976.)
37. Hjorth N., Diagnostic patch testing. In: Dermatotoxicology, 3rd edition, Marzulli F N, Maibach H I, (eds): New York, Hemisphere Publishing, 1987: pp. 307-317.
38. McNamee P M, Api A M, Basketter D A, Gerberick G F, Gilpin D A, Hall B M, Jowsey I, Robinson M K., A review of critical factors in the conduct and interpretation of the human repeat insult patch test. Reg Tox Pharm 2008: 54: 24-34.
39. OECD. OECD guideline for the testing of chemicals 429, 22nd July 2010. Skin Sensitization: Local Lymph Node Assay, 2010. Available at: (last accessed 29 October 2010).
40. Farage M A., Development of a modified forearm controlled application test method for evaluating the skin mildness of disposable wipe products. J Cosmet Sci 2000: 51: 153-167.
41. Lukacovic M F, Dunlap F E, Michaels S E, Visscher M O, Watson D D., Forearm wash test to evaluate the mildness of cleansing products. J Soc Cosmet Chem 1988: 3: 355-366.
42. Finkelstein P, Laden K, Meichowski W., New methods for evaluating cosmetic irritancy. J Invest Dermatol 1963: 40: 11-14.
43. Hannuksela M, Heikki S., The repeated open application test (ROAT). Contact Dermatitis 1986: 14: 221-227. (Pubitemid 16114439)
44. Andersen K E., Reproducibility of the chamber scarification test. Contact Dermatitis 1996: 43: 181-184. (Pubitemid 26083669)
45. Farage M A., The behind-the-knee test: an efficient model for evaluating mechanical and chemical irritation. Skin Res Technol 2006: 12: 73-82.
46. Bannan E A, Griffith J F, Nusair T L, Sauers L J., Skin testing of laundered fabrics in the dermal safety assessment of enzyme-containing detergents. J Toxicol Cut Ocul Toxicol 1992: 11: 327-339.
47. Rodriguez C, Calvin G, Lally C, Lachapelle J M., Skin effects associated with wearing fabrics washed in commercial laundry detergents. J Toxicol Cut Ocul Toxicol 1994: 13: 39-45. (Pubitemid 24068748)
48. Frosch P J, Kligman A M., The soap chamber test; a new method for assessing the irritancy of soaps. J Am Acad Dermatol 1979: 1: 35-41. (Pubitemid 11160085)
49. Frosch P J, Kligman A M., The chamber-scarification test for irritancy. Contact Dermatitis 2: 314-324.
50. Falk M, Anderson C., Reliability of self-assessed reading of skin tests: a possible approach in research and clinical practice? Dermatol Online J 2010: 16: 4. Available at: (last accessed 2 April 2010).
51. Ivens U, Serup J, O'goshi K., Allergy patch test reading from photographic images: disagreement on ICDRG grading but agreement on simplified tripartite reading. Skin Res Technol 2007: 13: 110-113. (Pubitemid 46152460)
52. Uter W, Becker D, Schnuch A, Gefeller O, Frosch P J., The validity of rating patch test reactions based on digital images. Contact Dermatitis 2007: 57: 337-342. (Pubitemid 47568793)
53. Lock-Andersen J, Wulf H C., Threshold level for measurement of UV sensitivity: reproducibility of phototest. Photodermatol Photoimmunol Photomed 1996: 12: l54-16l.
54. Griffiths H A, Wilhelm K-P, Robinson M K, Wang X M, McFadden J, York M, Basketter D A., Interlaboratory evaluation of a human patch test for the identification of skin irritation potential/hazard. Food Chem Toxicol 1997: 35: 255-260. (Pubitemid 27187459)
55. Basketter D, Reynolds F, Rowson M, Talbot C, Whittle E., Visual assessment of human skin irritation: a sensitive and reproducible tool. Contact Dermatitis 1997: 37: 218-220. (Pubitemid 27499879)
56. Willis C M, Stephens C J, Wilkinson J D., Assessment of erythema in irritant contact dermatitis. Comparison between visual scoring and laser Doppler flowmetry. Contact Dermatitis 1988: 18: 138-142. (Pubitemid 18077539)
57. Seidenari S, Belletti B., The quantification of patch test responses: a comparison between echographic and colorimetric methods. Acta Derm Venereol 1998: 78: 364-366. (Pubitemid 28396689)
58. Agner T, Serup J., Sodium lauryl sulphate for irritant patch testing-a dose- response study using bioengineering methods for determination of skin irritation. J Invest Dermatol 1990: 95: 543-547.
59. Lahti A, Kopola H, Harila A, Myllylä R, Hannuksela M., Assessment of skin erythema by eye, laser Doppler flowmeter, spectroradiometer, two-channel erythema meter and Minolta chroma meter. Arch Dermatol Res 1993: 285: 278-282. (Pubitemid 23256004)
60. Wahlberg J E., Erythema-inducing effects of solvents following epicutaneous administration to man-studied by laser Doppler flowmetry. Scand J Work Environ Health 1984: 10: 159-162. (Pubitemid 14083032)
61. Babulak S W, Rhein L D, Scala D D, Simion F A, Grove G L., Quantification of erythema in a soap chamber test using the Minolta croma (reflectance) meter: comparison of instrumental results with visual assessments. J Soc Cosmet Chem 1986: 37: 475-479.
62. Zuang V, Archer G, Rona C, Vignini M, Mosca M, Berardesca E., Predicting visual assessment of allergic patch test reactions by non-invasive measurements. Skin Pharmacol Appl Skin Physiol 2000: 13: 39-51. (Pubitemid 30093567)
63. Fluhr J W, Kuss O, Diepgen T, Lazzerini S, Pelosi A, Gloor M, Berardesca E., Testing for irritation with a multifactorial approach: comparison of eight non-invasive measuring techniques on five different irritation types. Br J Dermatol 2001: 145: 696-703. (Pubitemid 33078338)
64. Magnusson B M, Koskinen L D., Effects of topical application of capsaicin to human skin: a comparison of effects evaluated by visual assessment, sensation registration, skin blood flow and cutaneous impedance measurements. Acta Derm Venereol 1996: 76: 129-132.
65. Ollmar S, Nyren M, Nicander I, Emtestam L., Electrical impedance compared with other non-invasive bioengineering techniques and visual scoring for detection of irritation in human skin. Br J Dermatol 1994: 130: 29-36. (Pubitemid 24201133)
66. Fullerton A, Rode B, Serup J., Skin irritation typing and grading based on laser-Doppler perfusion imaging. Skin Res Technol 2002: 8: 23-31. (Pubitemid 34555461)
67. Wigger-Alberti W, Hinnen U, Elsner P., Predictive testing of metalworking fluids. A comparison of 2 cumulative human irritation models and correlation with epidemiological data. Contact Dermatitis 1997: 36: 14-20. (Pubitemid 27077922)
68. Held E, Lorentzen H, Agner T, Menné T., Comparison between visual score and erythema index (DermaSpectrometer) in evaluation of allergic patch tests. Skin Res Technol 1998: 4: 188-191. (Pubitemid 28510531)
69. Andersen K E, Straberg B., Quantification of contact allergy in guinea pigs by measuring changes in skin blood flow and skin fold thickness. Acta Derm Venereol 1985: 65: 37-42. (Pubitemid 15153809)
70. Breternitz M, Fluhr J W, Berardesca E., Technical bases of biophysical instruments used in sensitive skin testing. In: Sensitive Skin Syndrome, Berardesca E, Fluhr J W, Maibach H I, (eds): New York, Taylor & Francis, 2006: pp. 75-106.
71. Farage M A., Are we reaching the limits or our ability to detect skin effects with our current testing and measuring methods for consumer products? Contact Dermatitis 2005: 52: 297-303. (Pubitemid 40839889)
72. Farage M A., Enhancement of visual scoring of skin irritant reactions using cross-polarized light and parallel-polarized light. Contact Dermatitis 2008: 58: 147-155. (Pubitemid 351248570)