Dataset Information

Is electrodermal testing as effective as skin prick tests for diagnosing allergies? A double blind, randomised block design study.

ABSTRACT:

Objective

To evaluate whether electrodermal testing for environmental allergies can distinguish between volunteers who had previously reacted positively on skin prick tests for allergy to house dust mite or cat dander and volunteers who had reacted negatively to both allergens.

Design

Double blind, randomised block design.

Setting

A general practice in southern England.

Participants

15 volunteers who had a positive result and 15 volunteers who had a negative result on a previous skin prick test for allergy to house dust mite or cat dander.

Intervention

Each participant was tested with 6 items by each of 3 operators of the Vegatest electrodermal testing device in 3 separate sessions (a total of 54 tests per participant). For each participant the 54 items comprised 18 samples each of house dust mite, cat dander, and distilled water, though these were randomly allocated among the operators in each session. A research nurse sat with the participant and operator in all sessions to ensure blinding and adherence to the protocol and to record the outcome of each test.

Outcome

The presence or absence of an allergy according to the standard protocol for electrodermal testing.

Results

All the non-atopic participants completed all 3 testing sessions (810 individual tests); 774 (95.5%) of the individual tests conducted on the atopic participants complied with the testing protocol. The results of the electrodermal tests did not correlate with those of the skin prick tests. Electrodermal testing could not distinguish between atopic and non-atopic participants. No operator of the Vegatest device was better than any other, and no single participant's atopic status was consistently correctly diagnosed.

Conclusion

Electrodermal testing cannot be used to diagnose environmental allergies.

SUBMITTER: Lewith GT

PROVIDER: S-EPMC26588 | biostudies-literature | 2001 Jan

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Is electrodermal testing as effective as skin prick tests for diagnosing allergies? A double blind, randomised block design study.

Lewith G T GT Kenyon J N JN Broomfield J J Prescott P P Goddard J J Holgate S T ST

BMJ (Clinical research ed.) 20010101 7279

<h4>Objective</h4>To evaluate whether electrodermal testing for environmental allergies can distinguish between volunteers who had previously reacted positively on skin prick tests for allergy to house dust mite or cat dander and volunteers who had reacted negatively to both allergens.<h4>Design</h4>Double blind, randomised block design.<h4>Setting</h4>A general practice in southern England.<h4>Participants</h4>15 volunteers who had a positive result and 15 volunteers who had a negative result o ...[more]

PMID: 11159567

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundSkin prick tests (SPTs), or intraepidermal tests, are often the first diagnostic approach for people with a suspected allergy. Together with the clinical history, SPTs allow doctors to draw conclusions on allergies based on the sensitization pattern. The purpose of this study is to investigate the potential cost consequences that would accrue to a Swiss University hospital after the adoption of computer vision-based SPTs.MethodsWe conducted a cost-consequence analysis from a hospital's perspective to evaluate the potential cost consequences of using a computer vision-based system to read SPT results. The patient population consisted of individuals who were referred to the allergology department of one of the five university hospitals in Switzerland, Inselspital, whose allergology department averages 100 SPTs a week. We developed an early cost-consequence model comparing two SPT techniques; computer vision-based SPTs conducted with the aid of Nexkin DSPT and standard fully manual SPTs. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis and additional univariate sensitivity analyses were used to account for uncertainty.ResultsThe difference in average cost between the two alternatives from a hospital's perspective was estimated to be CHF 7 per SPT, in favour of the computer vison-based SPTs. Monte Carlo probabilistic simulation also indicated that SPTs conducted using the computer vision-based system were cost saving compared to standard fully manual SPTs. Sensitivity analyses additionally demonstrated the robustness of the base case result subject to plausible changes in all the input parameters, with parameters representing the costs associated with both SPT techniques having the largest influence on the incremental cost. However, higher sensitization prevalence rates seemed to favour the more accurate standard fully manual SPTs.ConclusionAgainst the backdrop of rising healthcare costs especially in Switzerland, using computer-aided or (semi) automated diagnostic systems could play an important role in healthcare cost containment efforts. However, results should be taken with caution because of the uncertainty associated with the early nature of our analysis and the specific Swiss context adopted in this study.

Project description:There are several methods to read skin prick test results in type-I allergy testing. A commonly used method is to characterize the wheal size by its 'average diameter'. A more accurate method is to scan the area of the wheal to calculate the actual size. In both methods, skin prick test (SPT) results can be corrected for histamine-sensitivity of the skin by dividing the results of the allergic reaction by the histamine control. The objectives of this study are to compare different techniques of quantifying SPT results, to determine a cut-off value for a positive SPT for histamine equivalent prick -index (HEP) area, and to study the accuracy of predicting cashew nut reactions in double-blind placebo-controlled food challenge (DBPCFC) tests with the different SPT methods.Data of 172 children with cashew nut sensitisation were used for the analysis. All patients underwent a DBPCFC with cashew nut. Per patient, the average diameter and scanned area of the wheal size were recorded. In addition, the same data for the histamine-induced wheal were collected for each patient. The accuracy in predicting the outcome of the DBPCFC using four different SPT readings (i.e. average diameter, area, HEP-index diameter, HEP-index area) were compared in a Receiver-Operating Characteristic (ROC) plot.Characterizing the wheal size by the average diameter method is inaccurate compared to scanning method. A wheal average diameter of 3 mm is generally considered as a positive SPT cut-off value and an equivalent HEP-index area cut-off value of 0.4 was calculated. The four SPT methods yielded a comparable area under the curve (AUC) of 0.84, 0.85, 0.83 and 0.83, respectively. The four methods showed comparable accuracy in predicting cashew nut reactions in a DBPCFC.The 'scanned area method' is theoretically more accurate in determining the wheal area than the 'average diameter method' and is recommended in academic research. A HEP-index area of 0.4 is determined as cut-off value for a positive SPT. However, in clinical practice, the 'average diameter method' is also useful, because this method provides similar accuracy in predicting cashew nut allergic reactions in the DBPCFC.Trial number NTR3572.

Project description:BackgroundThe burden of asthma in Africa is high, and yet the disease is not universally prioritised. Data on allergic asthma and its impact on asthma morbidity are limited in Africa. Our aim was to describe the distribution of skin prick positivity among asthmatics in Eastern Africa.MethodsFrom August 2016 to May 2018, 1671 asthmatic patients were enrolled from Uganda, Kenya, and Ethiopia as part of the African Severe Asthma Program clinical study. Skin prick testing was performed at baseline using a panel of 12 allergens, and factors associated with skin prick reactivity determined.ResultsOf the 1, 671 patients recruited, 71% were female with a median age of 40 years, 93.6% were aged >15 years and the patterns of asthma symptom frequency was intermittent in 2.9%, mild persistent in 19.9%, moderate persistent in 42.6% and severe persistent in 34.6% at baseline. Self-reported triggers, were dust (92%), cold weather (89%), upper respiratory infections (84%), strong smells (79%) and exposure to tobacco (78%). The majority (90%) of the participants had at least 1 positive allergen reaction, with 0.9% participants reacting to all the 12 allergens. Participants commonly reacted to house dust mites (66%), Blomia tropicalis (62%), and the German cockroach (52%). Patients sensitized to more allergens (>2) had significantly reduced lung function (FEV ≤ 80%; p = 0.001) and were more likely to visit the emergency department due to asthma (p = 0.012). There was no significant relationship between number of allergens and measures of asthma control, quality of life, and other clinical outcomes. Only the country of origin was independently associated with atopy among African asthmatics.ConclusionThere is a high prevalence of skin prick positivity among East African patients with asthma, with the commonest allergen being house dust mite. Skin reactivity did not correlate well with asthma severity and poor asthma control. The relation between atopy, measured through skin prick testing, and measures of asthma control among asthma patients in Eastern Africa is unclear and needs further study.Trial registrationThe ASAP study was registered prospectively. ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03065920; Registration date: February 28, 2017; Last verified: February 28, 2017.

Dataset Information

Is electrodermal testing as effective as skin prick tests for diagnosing allergies? A double blind, randomised block design study.

Objective

Design

Setting

Participants

Intervention

Outcome

Results

Conclusion

Publications

Is electrodermal testing as effective as skin prick tests for diagnosing allergies? A double blind, randomised block design study.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets