'Calibration' of our patch test reading technique is necessary

Contact Dermatitis

Volumn 66, Issue 4, 2012, Pages 180-187

  Svedman, Cecilia ^a   Isaksson, Marlene ^a   Björk, Jonas ^a   Mowitz, Martin ^a   Bruze, Magnus ^a  

^a LUND UNIVERSITY HOSPITAL   (Sweden)

Author keywords

Doubtful reactions; Guidelines on patch test reading; Irritant reactions; Validation of patch test reading

Indexed keywords

ALLERGEN; IRRITANT AGENT;

ADULT; ARTICLE; CALIBRATION; CLINICAL ARTICLE; CONTACT ALLERGY; CONTROLLED STUDY; DERMATOLOGIST; DISEASE CLASSIFICATION; FEMALE; HUMAN; MALE; OUTCOME ASSESSMENT; PATCH TEST; PRACTICE GUIDELINE; STANDARDIZATION; VALIDATION PROCESS; VOLUNTEER;

ADULT; ALLERGENS; DERMATITIS, ALLERGIC CONTACT; DERMATOLOGY; FEMALE; HUMANS; IRRITANTS; MALE; OBSERVER VARIATION; PATCH TESTS; PRACTICE GUIDELINES AS TOPIC; SINGLE-BLIND METHOD;

EID: 84857975169     PISSN: 01051873     EISSN: 16000536     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/j.1600-0536.2011.02044.x     Document Type: Article

References (23)

1. Storrs F J. Technical and ethical problems associated with patch testing. Clin Rev Allergy Immunol 1996: 14: 185-198. (Pubitemid 126444012)
2. 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. (Pubitemid 19028526)
3. Ale S I, Maibach H I. Reproducibility of patch test results: a concurrent right-versus-left study using TRUE Test. Contact Dermatitis 2004: 50: 304-312. (Pubitemid 38869905)
4. Lachapelle J M, Bruynzeel D P, Ducombs G et al. European multicenter study of the TRUE Test. Contact Dermatitis 1988: 19: 91-97.
5. Gollhausen R, Przybilla B, Ring J. Reproducibility of patch tests. J Am Acad Dermatol 1989: 21: 1196-1202. (Pubitemid 20216988)
6. 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.
7. Wilkinson D, Fregert S, Magnusson B et al. Terminology of contact dermatitis. Acta Derm Venereol 1970: 50: 287-292.
8. Menné T, White I. Standardization in contact dermatitis. Contact Dermatitis 2008: 58: 321 (Editorial). (Pubitemid 351733071)
9. Isaksson M, Gruvberger B, Frick-Engfeldt M et al. Which test chamber should be used for acetone, ethanol, and water solutions when patch testing? Contact Dermatitis 2007: 57: 132-136.
10. Wahlberg J E, Lindberg M. Patch testing. In: Contact Dermatitis, Frosch P J, Menné T, Lepoittevin J P (eds): Berlin, 2006: pp. 365-390.
11. Bruze M, Frick-Engfeldt M, Gruvberger B et al. Recommendation in the amount of petrolatum preparation applied at patch testing. Contact Dermatitis 2007: 56: 38-42. (Pubitemid 44924262)
12. Antoine J L, Lachapelle J M. Variations in the quantities of petrolatum applied in patch testing. Derm Beruf Umwelt 1988: 36: 191-194. (Pubitemid 19007590)
13. Mowad C M. Patch testing: pitfalls and performance. Curr Opin Allergy Clin Immunol 2006: 6: 340-344. (Pubitemid 44368240)
14. 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)
15. Uter W, Frosch P, Becker D et al. Are we biased when reading a doubtful patch test reaction to a clear-cut allergen such as the thiuram-mix. Contact Dermatitis 2009: 60: 234-235.
16. Fregert S. Manual of Contact Dermatitis, 2nd edition: Copenhagen, Munksgaard, 1981.
17. Altman D G. Practical Statistics for Medical Research, London, Chapman & Hall, 1991.
18. Andersen K E. Multicenter patch test studies: are they worth the effort? Contact Dermatitis 1998: 38: 222-223. (Pubitemid 28156126)
19. Jakobson E, Masjedi K, Ahlborg N et al. Cytokine production in nickel-sensitized individuals analysed with enzyme-linked immunospot assay; possible implication for diagnosis. Br J Dermatol 2002: 147: 442-449. (Pubitemid 35015276)
20. Spiewak R, Moed N, von Blomberg B M. Allergic contact dermatitis to nickel modified in vitro protocols better detection of allergen-specific response. Contact Dermatitis 2007: 56: 63-69. (Pubitemid 46143944)
21. de Winstanley P A, Bjork R A. Successful lecturing: presenting information in ways that engage effective processing. New Directions for Teaching and Learning, Wiley Periodicals, Inc., 2002: 89: 19-31.
22. Johansen J D, Bruze M, Andersen K E et al. The repeat open application test: suggestion for a scale of evaluation. Contact Dermatitis 1997: 39: 95-96.
23. 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)