Comparison of five techniques of skin prick tests used routinely in Europe

被引:35
作者
Masse, M. S. [2 ]
Vallee, A. Granger [3 ]
Chiriac, A. [2 ]
Dhivert-Donnadieu, H. [2 ]
Bousquet-Rouanet, L. [2 ]
Bousquet, P. -J. [2 ]
Demoly, P. [1 ,2 ]
机构
[1] Hop Arnaud de Villeneuve, CHRU Montpellier, Dept Pneumol, Unite Explorat Allergies, F-34295 Montpellier 5, France
[2] Hop Arnaud de Villeneuve, INSERM, U657, F-34295 Montpellier 5, France
[3] Hop Lapeyronie, Dept Nephrol, Montpellier, France
关键词
aeroallergens; device; diagnosis; lancet; sensitization; skin prick tests; DEVICES; PAIN; PRECISION;
D O I
10.1111/j.1398-9995.2011.02679.x
中图分类号
R392 [医学免疫学];
学科分类号
100102 ;
摘要
Background: Skin prick tests represent indispensable tools in allergy, even more than 30 years after their introduction in clinical practice. Objectives: Few recent European studies have focused on this topic and we thus wanted to compare the instruments most often used today. Methods: Four instruments were investigated: the 23G intravenous (IV) needle, the ALK Lancet, the Stallergenes (STG) Prick Lancet and the Stallerpoint (R) (using two different methods). Sensitivity, reproducibility, and acceptability were evaluated. In 22 subjects, we calculated the sensitivity and reproducibility (both intra-and interpatient) of these methods by testing the positive control five times. In 50 subjects, we tested the single-blind acceptability of these same five techniques. Results: In terms of sensitivity, the IV needle (100%) and metal lancets (96% for the ALK Lancet and 98% for the STG Prick Lancet) were superior (P < 0.01) to the two Stallerpoint (R) methods (20% and 57%). Intrapatient reproducibility was 16.2%, 14.6%, 15.0%, 97.1% and 18.1%, respectively. The instruments that were best tolerated by the patients were the IV needle and the two metal lancets. Conclusion: Metal needles and/or lancets are the tools of choice for skin prick testing.
引用
收藏
页码:1415 / 1419
页数:5
相关论文
共 14 条
[1]   A comparison of pain rating scales by sampling from clinical trial data [J].
Breivik, EK ;
Björnsson, GA ;
Skovlund, E .
CLINICAL JOURNAL OF PAIN, 2000, 16 (01) :22-28
[2]   Comparison of test devices for skin prick testing [J].
Carr, WW ;
Martin, B ;
Howard, RS ;
Cox, L ;
Borish, L .
JOURNAL OF ALLERGY AND CLINICAL IMMUNOLOGY, 2005, 116 (02) :341-346
[3]   PRECISION OF SKIN PRICK AND PUNCTURE TESTS WITH 9 METHODS [J].
DEMOLY, P ;
BOUSQUET, J ;
MANDERSCHEID, JC ;
DREBORG, S ;
DHIVERT, H ;
MICHEL, FB .
JOURNAL OF ALLERGY AND CLINICAL IMMUNOLOGY, 1991, 88 (05) :758-762
[4]  
Demoly P, 2009, MIDDLETONS ALLERGY P, P1267
[5]   STUDIES WITH PAIN RATING-SCALES [J].
DOWNIE, WW ;
LEATHAM, PA ;
RHIND, VM ;
WRIGHT, V ;
BRANCO, JA ;
ANDERSON, JA .
ANNALS OF THE RHEUMATIC DISEASES, 1978, 37 (04) :378-381
[6]   COMPARISON OF THE SENSITIVITY AND PRECISION OF 4 SKIN-TEST DEVICES [J].
ENGLER, DB ;
DEJARNATT, AC ;
SIM, TC ;
LEE, JL ;
GRANT, JA .
JOURNAL OF ALLERGY AND CLINICAL IMMUNOLOGY, 1992, 90 (06) :985-991
[7]   Reproducibility of skin prick test results in epidemiologic studies: a comparison of two devices [J].
Illi, S ;
Garcia-Marcos, L ;
Hernando, V ;
Guillen, JJ ;
Liese, A ;
von Mutius, E .
ALLERGY, 1998, 53 (04) :353-358
[8]  
Montalvo A, 1996, Allergol Immunopathol (Madr), V24, P58
[9]   Evaluation of devices for skin prick testing [J].
Nelson, HS ;
Lahr, J ;
Buchmeier, A ;
McCormick, D .
JOURNAL OF ALLERGY AND CLINICAL IMMUNOLOGY, 1998, 101 (02) :153-156
[10]   COMPARATIVE PERFORMANCE OF 5 COMMERCIAL PRICK SKIN-TEST DEVICES [J].
NELSON, HS ;
ROSLONIEC, DM ;
MCCALL, LI ;
IKLE, D .
JOURNAL OF ALLERGY AND CLINICAL IMMUNOLOGY, 1993, 92 (05) :750-756