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.
RCT Entities:
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.
Authors: Wanda Phipatanakul; Anne Bailey; Elaine B Hoffman; William J Sheehan; Jeffrey P Lane; Sachin Baxi; Devika Rao; Perdita Permaul; Jonathan M Gaffin; Christine A Rogers; Michael L Muilenberg; Diane R Gold Journal: J Asthma Date: 2011-10-20 Impact factor: 2.515
Authors: Sarah K Wise; Sandra Y Lin; Elina Toskala; Richard R Orlandi; Cezmi A Akdis; Jeremiah A Alt; Antoine Azar; Fuad M Baroody; Claus Bachert; G Walter Canonica; Thomas Chacko; Cemal Cingi; Giorgio Ciprandi; Jacquelynne Corey; Linda S Cox; Peter Socrates Creticos; Adnan Custovic; Cecelia Damask; Adam DeConde; John M DelGaudio; Charles S Ebert; Jean Anderson Eloy; Carrie E Flanagan; Wytske J Fokkens; Christine Franzese; Jan Gosepath; Ashleigh Halderman; Robert G Hamilton; Hans Jürgen Hoffman; Jens M Hohlfeld; Steven M Houser; Peter H Hwang; Cristoforo Incorvaia; Deborah Jarvis; Ayesha N Khalid; Maritta Kilpeläinen; Todd T Kingdom; Helene Krouse; Desiree Larenas-Linnemann; Adrienne M Laury; Stella E Lee; Joshua M Levy; Amber U Luong; Bradley F Marple; Edward D McCoul; K Christopher McMains; Erik Melén; James W Mims; Gianna Moscato; Joaquim Mullol; Harold S Nelson; Monica Patadia; Ruby Pawankar; Oliver Pfaar; Michael P Platt; William Reisacher; Carmen Rondón; Luke Rudmik; Matthew Ryan; Joaquin Sastre; Rodney J Schlosser; Russell A Settipane; Hemant P Sharma; Aziz Sheikh; Timothy L Smith; Pongsakorn Tantilipikorn; Jody R Tversky; Maria C Veling; De Yun Wang; Marit Westman; Magnus Wickman; Mark Zacharek Journal: Int Forum Allergy Rhinol Date: 2018-02 Impact factor: 3.858
Authors: Eric Leith; Tom Bowen; Joe Butchey; David Fischer; Harold Kim; Bill Moote; Peter Small; Don Stark; Susan Waserman Journal: Allergy Asthma Clin Immunol Date: 2006-06-15 Impact factor: 3.406
Authors: Hjalte H Andersen; Anna Charlotte Lundgaard; Anne S Petersen; Lise E Hauberg; Neha Sharma; Sofie D Hansen; Jesper Elberling; Lars Arendt-Nielsen Journal: PLoS One Date: 2016-05-23 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: T Haahtela; G J Burbach; C Bachert; C Bindslev-Jensen; S Bonini; J Bousquet; L Bousquet-Rouanet; P J Bousquet; M Bresciani; A Bruno; G W Canonica; U Darsow; P Demoly; S R Durham; W J Fokkens; S Giavi; M Gjomarkaj; C Gramiccioni; M L Kowalski; G Losonczy; M Orosz; N G Papadopoulos; G Stingl; A Todo-Bom; E von Mutius; A Köhli; S Wöhrl; S Järvenpää; H Kautiainen; L Petman; O Selroos; T Zuberbier; L M Heinzerling Journal: Clin Exp Allergy Date: 2014-03 Impact factor: 5.018