Advanced

'Calibration' of our patch test reading technique is necessary.

Svedman, Cecilia LU ; Isaksson, Marléne LU ; Björk, Jonas LU ; Mowitz, Martin LU and Bruze, Magnus LU (2012) In Contact Dermatitis 66(4). p.180-187
Abstract
Background: Patch testing has been used for more than 100 years as the best means to diagnose contact allergy. The increased use of the technique makes standardization of the methodology most important. Progress in the standardization of the patch test technique has been made through guidelines.



Objectives: To investigate the intra-individual and inter-individual differences in reading of patch tests in order to validate the actual patch test reading when reading is performed according to the same guidelines, and to determine whether information on guidelines actually improves the outcome of the patch test readings Patients/materials/methods. A patch test course for dermatologists was performed. Volunteers were patch... (More)
Background: Patch testing has been used for more than 100 years as the best means to diagnose contact allergy. The increased use of the technique makes standardization of the methodology most important. Progress in the standardization of the patch test technique has been made through guidelines.



Objectives: To investigate the intra-individual and inter-individual differences in reading of patch tests in order to validate the actual patch test reading when reading is performed according to the same guidelines, and to determine whether information on guidelines actually improves the outcome of the patch test readings Patients/materials/methods. A patch test course for dermatologists was performed. Volunteers were patch tested with irritants and allergens in different concentrations. The patch test reader did not know what substances had been tested.



Results: Irritant reactions/doubtful reactions and weak allergic reactions are difficult to differentiate (accordance for these reactions 21%, 19%, and 44%). Information and education have a beneficial effect on results, as shown by an improved kappa value.



Conclusions: Standardization of patch test reading is important. Information on the classification system resulted in a significant improvement. Interpretation of guidelines should be continuously evaluated. (Less)
Please use this url to cite or link to this publication:
author
organization
publishing date
type
Contribution to journal
publication status
published
subject
keywords
reactions, validation of patch test reading, irritant, guidelines on patch test reading, doubtful reactions
in
Contact Dermatitis
volume
66
issue
4
pages
180 - 187
publisher
Federation of European Neuroscience Societies and Blackwell Publishing Ltd
external identifiers
  • wos:000301175200003
  • pmid:22404193
  • scopus:84857975169
ISSN
0105-1873
DOI
10.1111/j.1600-0536.2011.02044.x
language
English
LU publication?
yes
id
337fca0d-2d3e-4cd0-9dc1-15461c4f6b1f (old id 2432063)
alternative location
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22404193?dopt=Abstract
date added to LUP
2012-04-03 09:54:10
date last changed
2017-07-30 03:05:10
@article{337fca0d-2d3e-4cd0-9dc1-15461c4f6b1f,
  abstract     = {Background: Patch testing has been used for more than 100 years as the best means to diagnose contact allergy. The increased use of the technique makes standardization of the methodology most important. Progress in the standardization of the patch test technique has been made through guidelines. <br/><br>
<br/><br>
Objectives: To investigate the intra-individual and inter-individual differences in reading of patch tests in order to validate the actual patch test reading when reading is performed according to the same guidelines, and to determine whether information on guidelines actually improves the outcome of the patch test readings Patients/materials/methods. A patch test course for dermatologists was performed. Volunteers were patch tested with irritants and allergens in different concentrations. The patch test reader did not know what substances had been tested. <br/><br>
<br/><br>
Results: Irritant reactions/doubtful reactions and weak allergic reactions are difficult to differentiate (accordance for these reactions 21%, 19%, and 44%). Information and education have a beneficial effect on results, as shown by an improved kappa value. <br/><br>
<br/><br>
Conclusions: Standardization of patch test reading is important. Information on the classification system resulted in a significant improvement. Interpretation of guidelines should be continuously evaluated.},
  author       = {Svedman, Cecilia and Isaksson, Marléne and Björk, Jonas and Mowitz, Martin and Bruze, Magnus},
  issn         = {0105-1873},
  keyword      = {reactions,validation of patch test reading,irritant,guidelines on patch test reading,doubtful reactions},
  language     = {eng},
  number       = {4},
  pages        = {180--187},
  publisher    = {Federation of European Neuroscience Societies and Blackwell Publishing Ltd},
  series       = {Contact Dermatitis},
  title        = {'Calibration' of our patch test reading technique is necessary.},
  url          = {http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0536.2011.02044.x},
  volume       = {66},
  year         = {2012},
}