Comparison of the sensitivity and precision of four skin test devices

Engler, David; A, DeJarnatt; Sim, Tommy C.; Lee, Jana L.; Grant, JA

doi:10.1016/0091-6749(92)90472-e

Cited by 28 publications

(8 citation statements)

References 7 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The ASPT technique is nonetheless notoriously difficult to standardize [3][4][5][6][7][8] and the results depend on many factors. Some are linked to the conditions chosen for the test, for example the technique and device [9][10][11][12][13] site used for skin testing, time of day, season of the year [14,15], potency of the extract [14,16,17] and method of reading [18][19][20]. Others relate to individual characteristics of the subject including age [21][22][23], sex [24], genetic predisposition [25], and the effect of changing or different life-styles [26,27].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Allergen skin weal/radioallergosorbent test relationship in childhood populations that differ in histamine skin reactivity: a multi‐national survey

Ronchetti

Villa

Rennerova

et al. 2005

Clin Experimental Allergy

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

These findings suggest that HSR--a variable that differs in schoolchildren populations from the three countries studied--independently influences the results of ASPT and its influence should be considered when ASPT are assessed in international studies. The HSR differences found in the populations reported here probably reflect a complex, dynamic, environmental interaction that should be monitored in the different parts of the world.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Allergen skin weal/radioallergosorbent test relationship in childhood populations that differ in histamine skin reactivity: a multi‐national survey

Ronchetti

Villa

Rennerova

et al. 2005

Clin Experimental Allergy

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Puncture tests with various devices were introduced to decrease the variability of skin prick tests (1164)(1165)(1166)(1167)(1168)(1169)(1170)(1171)(1172)(1173). With a trained investigator, they are highly reproducible (1171)(1172)(1173). Prick tests should be performed according to a rigorous methodology (1174).…”

Section: Skin Testsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Allergic Rhinitis and its Impact on Asthma (ARIA) 2008*

Bousquet¹,

Khaltaev²,

Cruz³

et al. 2008

Allergy

3,867

1,761

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…On the other hand, the larger wheal sizes positively affects the reproducibility (2). Several studies (2,6, 7 , 8 ) have investigated the reproducibility of the Multi-Test device, either as a comparison with other skin prick test devices (4)(5)(6)(7)(8) or as an evaluation of the Multi-Test by itself (2). Most of these studies concluded that the Multi-Test is a highly reproducible device (2,(6)(7)(8).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Comparison Of The Sensitivity, Precision And Reproducibility Of The Multi-test Device And Blood Lancet

2001

IJD

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background:In studies using allergen extracts, patients with 1+ reactions had been usually excluded. However, the borderline allergen reactions may give false positive or false negative results, in respect to chosen cutoff point. Objective: This study aimed to compare the skin prick test device Multi-Test applicator with blood lancet, in respect to their sensitivity, precision and reproducibility. Methods: The first group consist of 14 healthy subjects. The second group consist of 14 patients with allergic rhinitis, recruited from the Out-patient Allergy Clinic. The patients had known sensitivity to at least one allergen. Skin prick tests were performed with the single blood lancet and the Multi-Test device. The solutions used for testing were histamine, negative control for both group, and allergens (Dermatophagoides pteronyssinus, Dermatophagoides pharinae, grass, tree, weed, epidermal) for the second group.Results: For all three tested solutions, mean wheal sizes were larger for the Multi-Test device than for the lancet, in healthy group(p<0.0001) and in allergic rhinitis group(P<0.001). The coefficients of variations for Multi-Test device were always lower than lancet. (Multi Test vs. lancet; for negative control: 49.81 vs 76.74, for histamine: 23.36 vs 36.76, for allergens: 79.60 vs. 100.56). If 3 mm was chosen as a cutoff point 22.9 % of the reactions were false positive for Multi-Test device. Conclusions: According to results of our study cutoff point of 4.5 mm for Multi-Test device was comparable with cutoff point of 3 mm for lancet, with no false positive reactions for both devices.

show abstract

Comparison of the sensitivity and precision of four skin test devices

Cited by 28 publications

References 7 publications

Allergen skin weal/radioallergosorbent test relationship in childhood populations that differ in histamine skin reactivity: a multi‐national survey

Allergen skin weal/radioallergosorbent test relationship in childhood populations that differ in histamine skin reactivity: a multi‐national survey

Allergic Rhinitis and its Impact on Asthma (ARIA) 2008*

Comparison Of The Sensitivity, Precision And Reproducibility Of The Multi-test Device And Blood Lancet

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About