Advertisement

Reproducibility of Patch Test Results: Comparison of TRUE Test and Finn Chamber Test

  • R. Gollhausen
  • B. Przybilla
  • J. Ring

Summary

For evaluation of reproducibility duplicate patch test series comprising 12 allergens were applied to either side of the back in a total of 139 patients. The reproducibility of a newly developed patch test system, the TRUE Test, was compared with that of the Finn chamber test. In the TRUE Test 20 of 63 patients had at least one positive reaction, the total number of positive reactions being 28. Five of these 28 reactions (17.9%) were found on only one side of the back, i.e. they were nonreproducible. In the Finn chamber test 33 of 76 patients had at least one positive reaction, and 22 of 58 positive reactions (37.9%) were nonreproducible. The percentage of nonreproducible positive results was more than twice as high in the Finn chamber test as in the TRUE Test. However, due to the low number this difference in reproducibility between the two test systems was not statistically significant using the chi-square test (P = 0.1).

Key words

Patch test Reproducibility False-positive reactions False-negative reactions TRUE Test Finn chamber test 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Bandmann HJ, Dohn W (1967) Die Epikutantestung. Bergmann, München.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Bandmann HJ, Agathos M (1981) Das ‘Angry Back Syndrome’. Untersuchungsergebnisse mit Sequenztestungen, Wiederholungstestungen und dem Cocarden-(Target-)Test. Hautarzt [Suppl V] 32:97–104.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Bruynzeel DP (1983) Angry back or excited skin syndrome. Thesis. Kripps Repro Mettel, Amsterdam.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Bruynzeel DP, Maibach HI (1986) Excited skin syndrome (angry back). Arch Dermatol122: 323–328.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Lachapelle JM, Bruynzeel DP, Ducombs G, Hannuksela M, Ring J, White IR, Wilkinson J, Fisher T, Billberg K (1988) European multicenter study of the TRUE test. Contact Dermatitis 19: 91–97.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Fischer T, Maibach HI (1985) The thin layer rapid use epicutaneous test (TRUE-test), a new patch method with high accuracy. Br J Dermatol 112: 63–68.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Fischer T, Maibach HI (1986) Patch testing in allergic contact dermatitis: an update. Sem Dermatol 5: 214–224.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Gollhausen R, Przybilla B, Ring J (1987) Reproducibility of patch testing. Proceedings of the XVII Congressus Mundi Dermatologiae, 24–29 May, 1987. Volume of abstracts. University of Steglitz, Berlin, p 59.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Hasan T, Jansen CT (1988) Reproducibility and dosaging in photocontact testing. (This volume).Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Kligman AM, Gollhausen R (1986) The “angry back”. A new concept or old confusion? Br J Dermatol [Suppl 31] 115: 93–100.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Maibach HI, Fregert S, Magnusson B, Pirilä V, Hjorth N, Wilkinson D, Malten K, Meneghini C, Lachapelle JM, Calnan C, Cronin E (1982) Quantification of the excited skin syndrome (the ‘angry back’). Retesting one patch at a time. Contact Dermatitis 8: 78.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Luderschmidt C, Heilgemeier G, RingJ, Burg G (1982) Polyvalente Kontaktallergie versus ‘Angry Back’: Zur Problematik falsch positiver Epikutantestreaktionen. Allergologie 5: 262–264.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Mitchell JC (1977) Multiple concomitant positive patch test reactions. Contact Dermatitis 3: 315–320.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 1989

Authors and Affiliations

  • R. Gollhausen
    • 1
  • B. Przybilla
    • 1
  • J. Ring
    • 1
  1. 1.Dermatologische Klinik und Poliklinik der Ludwig-Maximilians-UniversitätMunich 2Germany

Personalised recommendations