Comparison of test devices for skin prick testing - 18/08/11
, Bryan Martin, DO a, Robin S. Howard, MA b, Linda Cox, MD c, Larry Borish, MD d, the Immunotherapy Committee of the American Academy of Allergy, Asthma and Immunology
Reprint requests: Warner W. Carr, MD, Division of Experimental Therapeutics, Walter Reed Army Institute of Research, 503 Robert Grant Ave, Silver Spring, MD 20910.Silver Spring, Md, Fort Lauderdale, Fla, and Charlottesville, Va
Abstract |
Background |
Allergy skin testing guides developing avoidance plans and writing an immunotherapy prescription. The goal for the allergist is to apply allergen skin testing to the appropriate patient population by using a device that minimizes both false-negative and false-positive findings while minimizing patient discomfort. New skin testing devices continue to be developed with a trend toward production of multiheaded devices. Data on the performance of these devices in a head-to-head prospective fashion are limited.
Objective |
Our goal was to study 8 commonly used devices to compare their performance in a head-to-head fashion.
Methods |
In a prospective, double-blind fashion, the performance of 8 skin test devices was evaluated. Devices were tested with histamine and saline on both the arms and back of each subject. Devices were rotated over 4 testing sessions, at least a week apart, so each device was tested in each anatomic testing location. Performance elements examined included wheal, flare, pain, sensitivity, specificity, and intradevice variability.
Results |
We found significant differences in all areas of device performance among all devices examined. Multiheaded devices also demonstrated significant intradevice variability and were more painful than single devices. Furthermore, multiheaded devices had larger reactions on the back, whereas single devices had larger reactions on the arms.
Conclusion |
Statistically significant differences exist among all devices tested. Providers should consider this data when choosing a device that suits their practice setting and ensure that technicians are sufficiently trained on the correct use of that device.
Le texte complet de cet article est disponible en PDF.Key words : Skin testing, device, performance, variability, pain
Abbreviation used : CV
Plan
| Supported by the Walter Reed Army Medical Center, Department of Clinical Investigations. Disclosure of potential conflict of interest: L. Borish has consultant arrangements with PDL, Syngenta, and Sepracor. No other relevant conflicts of interest to disclose. The opinions or assertions contained herein are the private views of the authors and are not to be construed as official or as reflecting the views of the Department of the Army or the Department of Defense. |
Vol 116 - N° 2
P. 341-346 - août 2005 Retour au numéro
Article précédent
- Differential effects of (S)- and (R)-enantiomers of albuterol in a mouse asthma model
- William R. Henderson, Ena Ray Banerjee, Emil Y. Chi
- Allergen-specific nasal IgG antibodies induced by vaccination with genetically modified allergens are associated with reduced nasal allergen sensitivity
- Jürgen Reisinger, Friedrich Horak, Gabrielle Pauli, Marianne van Hage, Oliver Cromwell, Franz König, Rudolf Valenta, Verena Niederberger
Bienvenue sur EM-consulte, la référence des professionnels de santé.
L’accès au texte intégral de cet article nécessite un abonnement.
Déjà abonné à cette revue ?