BACKGROUND: Many unconventional diagnostic procedures based on bioelectrical skin responses are presently widely used for allergic diseases, but rigorous experimental evaluations of their accuracy are still lacking. AIM: We assessed whether an electrodermal device can correctly diagnose respiratory allergy. METHODS: The diagnostic accuracy of the electrodermal device was assessed in double-blind fashion in 72 allergic patients and 28 healthy volunteers. A random sequence of substances in sealed vials, including histamine, allergens, immunoglobulins at various dilutions and physiological saline, were tested in duplicate in each subject. RESULTS: A wide variability of the measurements was found in most patients irrespective of their allergy status and of the substance tested. Allergic patients showed more negative skin electrical response at the second trial, compared to normal controls, independent of the tested substance. No significant difference in skin electrical response between allergens and negative controls could be detected. CONCLUSION: We conclude that the studied bioelectrical method, under blind testing, cannot correctly detect respiratory allergy.
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND: Many unconventional diagnostic procedures based on bioelectrical skin responses are presently widely used for allergic diseases, but rigorous experimental evaluations of their accuracy are still lacking. AIM: We assessed whether an electrodermal device can correctly diagnose respiratory allergy. METHODS: The diagnostic accuracy of the electrodermal device was assessed in double-blind fashion in 72 allergicpatients and 28 healthy volunteers. A random sequence of substances in sealed vials, including histamine, allergens, immunoglobulins at various dilutions and physiological saline, were tested in duplicate in each subject. RESULTS: A wide variability of the measurements was found in most patients irrespective of their allergy status and of the substance tested. Allergicpatients showed more negative skin electrical response at the second trial, compared to normal controls, independent of the tested substance. No significant difference in skin electrical response between allergens and negative controls could be detected. CONCLUSION: We conclude that the studied bioelectrical method, under blind testing, cannot correctly detect respiratory allergy.
Authors: Ignacio J Ansotegui; Giovanni Melioli; Giorgio Walter Canonica; Luis Caraballo; Elisa Villa; Motohiro Ebisawa; Giovanni Passalacqua; Eleonora Savi; Didier Ebo; R Maximiliano Gómez; Olga Luengo Sánchez; John J Oppenheimer; Erika Jensen-Jarolim; David A Fischer; Tari Haahtela; Martti Antila; Jean J Bousquet; Victoria Cardona; Wen Chin Chiang; Pascal M Demoly; Lawrence M DuBuske; Marta Ferrer Puga; Roy Gerth van Wijk; Sandra Nora González Díaz; Alexei Gonzalez-Estrada; Edgardo Jares; Ayse Füsun Kalpaklioğlu; Luciana Kase Tanno; Marek L Kowalski; Dennis K Ledford; Olga Patricia Monge Ortega; Mário Morais Almeida; Oliver Pfaar; Lars K Poulsen; Ruby Pawankar; Harald E Renz; Antonino G Romano; Nelson A Rosário Filho; Lanny Rosenwasser; Mario A Sánchez Borges; Enrico Scala; Gian-Enrico Senna; Juan Carlos Sisul; Mimi L K Tang; Bernard Yu-Hor Thong; Rudolf Valenta; Robert A Wood; Torsten Zuberbier Journal: World Allergy Organ J Date: 2020-02-25 Impact factor: 4.084
Authors: Agatha P Colbert; Jinkook Yun; Adrian Larsen; Tracy Edinger; William L Gregory; Tran Thong Journal: Evid Based Complement Alternat Med Date: 2007-06-15 Impact factor: 2.629